The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

North/South Ministerial Council: Agriculture

Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development that she wishes to make a statement on the meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council in its agriculture sectoral format that took place on 25 January 2002 in Enniskillen.

Ms Brid Rodgers: The fifth meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council in its agriculture sectoral format was held at the Manor House Hotel, Killadeas, in County Fermanagh on 25 January 2002. The Minister of the Environment, Mr Foster, accompanied me to that meeting, which I chaired, and he has agreed the contents of this statement. Mr Joe Walsh TD, Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, represented the Government of the Republic of Ireland.
The Council noted the progress made by the various working groups on the programme of work spanning areas of animal health. It was noted that the working groups had met and produced action plans for future work. The Council received an informative presentation by a senior official from the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, outlining the current position on various animal diseases in the two jurisdictions. The Council endorsed a joint paper on animal health on the island of Ireland and asked the animal health steering group and working groups to continue their work with a view to developing closer co-operation and joint strategies for the improvement of animal health on both sides of the border.
The Council noted that both Administrations were committed to conducting a review of the foot-and- mouth disease outbreaks and that restrictions on animal movements continued to be applied in both jurisdictions. Progress has been made in developing a common approach to the identification of sheep and pigs and on the introduction of common approaches to Aujeszky’s disease.
At a previous meeting of the Council it was agreed that a joint approach should be developed to pursue the eradication of scrapie among sheep. The Council expressed the hope that the joint approach would ensure the ultimate eradication of scrapie from the whole island and that, in the meantime, normal trade would continue in accordance with Community rules.
The Council reiterated that its priorities in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations should be the protection of the ability to export to Third-World countries and the retention of the WTO "blue box" exemption for direct payments to farmers.
Since the last meeting of the Council in its agriculture format, a new round of multilateral trade negotiations under the auspices of the WTO has been launched at the WTO ministerial conference in Doha, Qatar last November. The Council discussed the key elements of the subsequent declaration relating to agriculture and agreed to keep progress under review.
The Council noted and supported the active co-operation between the two Departments of Agriculture on the implementation of the common agricultural policy (CAP). Recent discussions between the two Departments focused on the changes to the EU Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS) regulations, CAP simplification, the sheep retention period for 2002, sheep irregularity cases, reform of the sheepmeat regime and use of discretionary beef national envelope funds in 2002.
The Council also noted a progress report submitted by the steering committee on cross-border rural development and the fact that the committee will advise Ministers on appropriate follow-up action regarding the two studies commissioned by the steering committee. Those studies relate to co-operation between cross- border rural communities and cross-border rural development, education, training and research. The Council was also pleased to note that the European Commission has agreed the Ireland/Northern Ireland INTERREG III operational programme.
The Council acknowledged a positive report on the existing liaison between the two jurisdictions on plant health matters, which extends to both technical and scientific co-operation. It encouraged the relevant authorities to pursue the areas suggested for extended co-operation in plant health research and development. The secretariat tabled a paper to seek the Council’s confirmation of the appointment of a new chief executive of Foras na Gaeilge, the Irish language body, and the Council confirmed that appointment.
The next meeting in agriculture sectoral format will take place in the South. However, given the proximity of elections in the South, a date has not yet been agreed. It is hoped that a firm date for a meeting can be finalised as soon as possible. The text of a communiqué for issue following the meeting was agreed, and a copy of it has been placed in the Assembly Library.

Mr Eddie McGrady: The Minister kindly received delegations from my constituency and therefore knows of the great concern about the proliferation of bovine tuberculosis (TB), particularly the clusters in south Down and the border regions. What further action will she take in conjunction with her partner Department in the South to co-ordinate the eradication of the disease? Will she consider the creation of a pilot scheme such as that in Monaghan, which seems to be giving positive indications of the eradication of bovine TB in that area? Can such a scheme be applied to some of the disease hot spots in south Down?

Ms Brid Rodgers: Mr McGrady has been active in pushing me to act on the issue. The North/South Ministerial Council received a report that action plans had been agreed by the working parties. Minister Walsh and I have asked the working parties to produce concrete action plans. I hope that joint strategies will be agreed by the end of the year. I am well aware of the problems of TB and brucellosis, particularly in the hot spots that Mr McGrady referred to. The working groups have discussed all of those matters. I will have more details about the matter and an agreement on a joint strategy before the end of the year.

Mr Jim Wilson: I draw the Minister’s attention to the statement in the report that the Council noted that both Administrations were committed to conducting reviews of the foot-and-mouth disease outbreaks. Does the Minister not expect that an attempt will be made by one jurisdiction to lay blame on the other, particularly with regard to any activity that preceded the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease and any activity that both jurisdictions engaged in to bring the crisis to an end?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I do not anticipate that either jurisdiction will lay blame on the other. Both worked extremely well together throughout the crisis to contain the spread of the disease. In the initial stages there was close co-operation between the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and the South. Indeed, the quick action of my Department in tracing the missing sheep, despite the difficulties, was acknowledged as having had a major impact on preventing the further spread of the disease.
The review is being carried out on both sides of the border. On this side of the border there will be an independent consultative review, which will have its own independent secretariat. It will be able to talk to whomever it likes, on either side of the border. I envisage that the review being carried out in the South will be equally independent, and I do not foresee any difficulties between the two jurisdictions on this.

Mr Gerry McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the statement from the Minister and the work that is being done by the rural development groups and the cross-border bodies on INTERREG, the work that is being done by the World Trade Organisation — though I am not sure whether I agree with the direction it is taking — and the appointment of the chief executive to Foras na Gaeilge, the Irish language body.
I have two questions for the Minister on foot-and-mouth disease and brucellosis. Can the Minister assure the House that foot-and-mouth disease cannot now reach Ireland, given that there is little change in Britain with regard to the import of meat products from susceptible countries? Is there not a threat to the disease-free status of the South from the increase in the incidence of brucellosis along the border?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I know that Minister Beckett across the water is looking at the threat from Third-World countries and others with a view to ensuring that it is dealt with. Our port controls in the island of Ireland remain in place. There have been complaints about the strictness of those controls, but people cannot have it both ways. I am not referring to Mr McHugh — but I have been told that I am too strict about refusing access to vehicles because they have not been properly cleansed and disinfected. I may also be criticised for not doing enough. The Department will remain cautious and keep its guard up at the ports. That is the best way of guaranteeing that the island, North or South, does not import the disease via Northern Ireland.
Can the Member repeat his question on brucellosis?

Mr Gerry McHugh: Could the South lose its disease-free status due to the continuing presence of brucellosis in areas such as County Armagh?

Ms Brid Rodgers: The Department has being carrying out a review of its disease controls with a view to tightening them. Mr McHugh will be aware that it has stepped up its testing, from biennial to annual, in the areas that are most affected. The Department is doing everything possible to curb the worrying increase that has occurred in recent years and to ensure that the disease is eradicated.

Mr John Dallat: Perhaps the Minister will allow me the luxury of staring into agriculture’s crystal ball. Has the Minister any plans to bring any of the proposals contained in the vision group’s report before the North/South Ministerial Council?

Ms Brid Rodgers: There are several recommendations with a North/South dimension in the vision group’s report, especially on animal health. There seems to be widespread support in the North for an all-island policy on animal and plant health. The report also includes recommendations on the potential for North/South co-operation on research and development; food branding; equine issues; and on representing the interests of the two parts of the island on the common agricultural policy, particularly in its forthcoming review. I may bring forward proposals in those areas to the North/South Ministerial Council, once I have completed my assessment of the vision group’s recommendations.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Can the Minister tell the House how much the meeting cost and how those costs were met? Is the Minister aware that a vaccination exists for brucellosis? Has the Department costed the use of that vaccination? Does the Department have any evidence that farmers have deliberately spread the disease? Some of the material that I have seen indicates that the disease cannot be deliberately spread. Has the Minister any definite information on the alleged spread of the disease?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I thank Mr Paisley Jnr for his questions. I did not write them down, so I will try to remember them all — I think that there were three or four.
I do not have the cost of the North/South Ministerial Council meeting to hand, although I will certainly be able to supply it.
Allegations of deliberate infection of herds with brucellosis have been made. Mr Paisley is aware that several cases are being looked at and several compensation payments have been withheld. It would be wrong of me to comment further at this stage.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: The Minister mentioned the common agricultural policy in a previous answer. Can she expand on the progress that is being made on developing a common approach to the reform of the policy?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I have discussed and agreed with Joe Walsh, Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development in the South, a set of common concerns about and priorities for the future development of the common agricultural policy and the related issues of EU enlargement and the World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations. We have agreed to continue to review developments on those matters and have agreed common priorities for our approach to the forthcoming review of the common agricultural policy.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: I welcome the Minister’s statement and thank her and her colleague, Mr Walsh, for all their hard work.
The Minister said that some work has been done on the scrapie menace. Can the Minister give a little more detail on progress on the establishment of an all-Ireland scrapie eradication programme?

Ms Brid Rodgers: Under the auspices of the North/South Ministerial Council, I have agreed with Minister Walsh to tackle jointly the eradication of scrapie from the island of Ireland. The nature of the disease and of the sheep population in Ireland make it sensible to have a unified approach. We have agreed that that will be pursued by genotyping and culling susceptible and affected animals.
While the approaches in each jurisdiction may differ in detail, they each involve the removal of scrapie-infected and scrapie-susceptible animals from flocks. There will be controls on restocking aimed at ensuring that there will be no subsequent reinfection from the environment. That approach will ensure that scrapie is ultimately eradicated from the island of Ireland and that, in the meantime, normal trade may continue in accordance with EU rules.
Public consultation on the proposals for the Northern Ireland scrapie plan ended on 14 January 2002, and officials are considering the responses to it. Our proposals include a voluntary scheme that involves genotyping, which is a method of breeding resistance to scrapie into the sheep population, and other focused eradication measures such as slaughtering sheep that are infected with scrapie. Those proposals are designed to take advantage of the low incidence of scrapie in Northern Ireland. The aim is to reduce incidences of scrapie and ultimately to eliminate it from the Northern Ireland flock. The all-Ireland strategy is aimed at eliminating scrapie from the whole island.

Mr Mick Murphy: Go raibh maith agat. Was there any discussion of the spreading of slurry on the whole island on foot of the EU Directive? Mr Noel Dempsey, the Minister for Environment and Local Government in the other part of this island, has discussed the control of slurry spreading to prevent the spread of brucellosis among wildlife.

Ms Brid Rodgers: There was no discussion of the spreading of slurry at the North/South Ministerial Council meeting in Fermanagh.

Mr David Ervine: Is the Minister satisfied with the style and nature of our representation with the World Trade Organisation? Will she explain exactly what that representation is?

Ms Brid Rodgers: We do not represent a sovereign Government, and therefore we do not attend meetings of the WTO. However, we are represented at the WTO negotiations by the UK Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The WTO negotiations will have implications for everyone, and will have an impact on the review of the common agricultural policy (CAP). As a regional Minister, together with my counterparts in Wales and Scotland, I have an input into the formulation of UK policy on all those issues. Although the regional Ministers are not present at the negotiations, our input is considered. The matter has also been discussed with my ministerial colleague in the South, and we have agreed our priorities in respect of CAP.

Mr Alban Maginness: I welcome the Minister’s statement, and congratulate her on her selection as Politician of the Year. I am sure that all Members, in the spirit of goodwill and generosity that characterises the House, will join me in congratulating her. Her selection is a recognition of her tremendous leadership of this community during the foot-and-mouth disease epidemic. That leadership continues and is exemplified in her statement today —[Interruption].
I am sorry; I did not hear that.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: She is deputy leader.

Mr Alban Maginness: I congratulate the Minister on that also. What are her views on the recently published report of the policy commission on agriculture in England?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I thank Mr Maginness for his kind remarks, and thank the Assembly for having honoured me with its recognition as Politician of the Year. The vote was a recognition of the way in which the Assembly, the Executive and the Agriculture Committee worked together at a difficult time to achieve a good result for the people of Northern Ireland.
For the information of Mr Paisley Jnr, Mr Maginness has warmly congratulated me on my appointment as deputy leader. Therefore, there was no need for the Member to have made that point.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: I am glad to hear that; that is a real relief.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Ms Brid Rodgers: Mr Maginness asked about the policy commission. It is important to remember that its remit covers only England. The commission has made recommendations on several issues that must be addressed at a UK level. The four UK Agriculture Ministers will discuss those issues as appropriate, and any subsequent action will be subject to collective decision. Yesterday I met my Scottish and Welsh colleagues in Edinburgh, and such matters were discussed.
The report is comprehensive, and I wish to study it carefully before I make any substantive comments. Many of the problems and challenges faced by farmers in Northern Ireland are similar to those faced by farmers elsewhere in the UK and beyond. Therefore, it is unsurprising that the methods proposed to tackle those issues are similar to those measures recommended in the vision report, which was geared to examining problems and proposed solutions from a Northern Ireland perspective.
Nevertheless, there may be ideas in the commission’s report that we might wish to explore to determine whether they could be of benefit to Northern Ireland farmers. However, I stress again that the policy commission’s remit covered only England; it did not relate to any of the regions.

Budget Bill: First Stage

Dr Sean Farren: I beg leave to lay before the Assembly a Bill [NIA Bill 2/01] to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of certain sums for the service of the years ending 31 March 2002 and 2003; to appropriate those sums for specified purposes; to authorise the Department of Finance and Personnel to borrow on the credit of the appropriated sums; to authorise the use for the public service of certain resources for the years ending 31 March 2002 and 2003; and to revise the limits on the use of certain accruing resources in the year ending 31 March 2002.
Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Mr Speaker: The Bill will be put on the list of pending business until a date for its Second Stage is determined.
I have received notification in respect of the Bill from the Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel that the requirements of Standing Order 40 have been fully met in terms of appropriate consultation. It is, therefore, in order for the Budget Bill to proceed with accelerated passage.

Local Government (Best Value) Bill: Further Consideration Stage

Clauses 1 to 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Long title agreed to.

Mr Speaker: That concludes the Further Consideration Stage of the Local Government (Best Value) Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Gaming (Variation of Monetary Limits) Order (Northern Ireland) 2001

Mr Nigel Dodds: I beg to move
That the Gaming (Variation of Monetary Limits) Order (Northern Ireland) 2001 (SR 414/2001) be approved.
The Order will raise certain monetary limits in the Betting, Gaming, Lotteries and Amusements (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 that apply to commercial and non- commercial gaming. Those, and other limits, in the 1985 Order are minor issues that are routinely reviewed by subordinate legislation to maintain their relative value.
Articles 2, 3 and 4 refer to the monetary limits that apply to commercial bingo clubs that have been licensed by the courts. Article 2 deals with the limit placed on weekly winnings on games of "link bingo" in such clubs. "Link bingo" is the name given to bingo games that are played simultaneously in different clubs. Article 3 refers to the limit on the amount by which a bingo club proprietor may top up the stake money. The 1985 Order allows licensed bingo clubs to offer gaming for small prizes, subject to certain conditions. Article 4 of the Order deals with the limits on such gaming.
11.00am
Articles 5 and 6 apply to non-commercial gaming. Article 5 applies to small-scale gaming such as bridge, whist drives and bingo, organised for charitable purposes, under article 126 of the 1985 Order. Article 6 of this subordinate Order applies to the small charges that certain clubs may make for non-banker, equal-chance gaming, including bingo, under article 128 of the 1985 Order. Article 7 will revoke the previous provisions, which last raised the limits contained in the present Order and which are now redundant.
I commend the Order to the Assembly.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Gaming (Variation of Monetary Limits) Order (Northern Ireland) 2001 (SR 414/2001) be approved.

Assembly: Business Committee

Resolved:
That Mr PJ Bradley replace Dr Alasdair McDonnell on the Business Committee. — [ Mr Tierney.]

Report of the Committee of the Centre: Postal Ballot Papers

Mr Edwin Poots: I beg to move
That this Assembly approves the report of the Committee of the Centre ‘Report into the proposal to record the return of postal ballot papers’ (01/01R) and agrees that it be submitted to the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions as a report of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
In November 2001, the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions issued a consultation paper seeking views on the proposal to amend the various representation of the people regulations to provide for the official recording of the receipt of postal ballot papers. A copy of the paper was sent to the Assembly. At its meeting on 4 December 2001, the Business Committee agreed that the consultation paper should be referred to the Committee of the Centre to prepare a response on the Assembly’s behalf. The Committee considered the paper on 12 December and agreed to seek written views from several bodies on the issues raised in the document. Written submissions were received from the Information Commissioner, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland, and the de Borda Institute. The Committee thanks those bodies for taking time to respond to its request for information. The proposal is to allow the receipt of postal ballot papers to be recorded officially by electoral administrators, and views were sought on the principle of the proposal and on the practicalities of its implementation.
Under present procedures, the electoral register is marked to show that a ballot paper has been issued to a postal voter. The principal purpose of the mark is to prevent a voter who subsequently goes to a polling station from double-voting. However, the marked register does not record whether the postal ballot is returned. The Committee considered in some detail the proposal and its implications. It noted that, if the proposal is adopted, those inspecting the marked register will be able to identify who has returned a postal vote. Members know that the position is the same for those voting in person, as the register is marked to show that an individual has been issued with a ballot paper at the polling station.
In his response to the Committee, the Chief Electoral Officer expressed some concern about the proposal. He was concerned about the possible perception that, in noting the return of a postal ballot paper, someone could note how a person had voted, and that this could lead to a loss of confidence in the democratic process. The Committee considered this carefully and concluded that the opportunity for noting how a person had voted would be limited and that the risk to the secrecy of the ballot would therefore be very low.
Inspection of the marked registers is provided for under legislation. The principal users are candidates and political parties who use the data to establish voting patterns and trends. In addition, some electors have expressed a wish to have a way of checking that their ballot papers have been received. There is currently no way to do this. In its submission to the Committee, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission commented that
"It is unsatisfactory that, at present, people who use postal votes have no way of finding out whether their ballot paper arrived."
The Committee agrees and considers that procedures should be put in place for the receipt of postal ballot papers to be recorded officially.
The Committee also examined the practical implications of the proposal. The consultation paper proposed that the return of an individual’s postal voting documents should be recorded when the declaration of identity is checked, and the Committee agrees that that is the most appropriate point at which to record the information. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission highlighted that that is an area where Northern Ireland legislation differs from that in Great Britain and advised the Committee that if a ballot paper is returned without an accompanying declaration in Northern Ireland it is immediately ruled out, even if a declaration that matches it arrives separately. The Committee considered that the same procedures should apply throughout the United Kingdom and recommends that the legislation in Northern Ireland regarding the matching of declarations of identity and postal ballots be brought into line with legislation in Great Britain.
The other practical issue to be considered is where such information should be recorded. The consultation paper sets out two options. The first is to record the information on the marked electoral register that is used in each polling station, which would result in one consolidated list. That would mean that the process of marking the register with returned postal votes would have to be completed once the registers are returned from the polling stations — that is, after the count.
The second option considered in the paper is to record the information on the list of postal voters maintained by the electoral registration officer. That would result in a separate record — a marked postal voters list. That information could be recorded as and when the postal votes are opened. It would then be up to anyone wishing to inspect the records to obtain both sets of data.
The Committee is aware that recording the information on the marked electoral register that is used in each polling station to produce one consolidated list might cause some additional administrative work for staff in the Electoral Office. However, according to the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland, the Electoral Office would be able to cope with the requirement once its new computer system, with suitable enhancements, is installed. The Committee concluded that there are advantages in having one consolidated list and recommends that the information should be recorded on the marked electoral register.
The Committee considered two related issues during its deliberations. In its submission to the Committee, the Human Rights Commission expressed reservations about the use of the electoral register for purposes not connected with elections, such as its sale for commercial use, and suggested that the regulations should restrict access to those who can show an election-related need for the information. The Committee considered this and agreed that individuals should be able to choose whether personal information held on the electoral register can be used for commercial purposes. The Committee considers that, in general, the electoral register should be used only for the purposes of public or court administration, and access should be limited to those who can show an election-related need for the information. The Committee has made reference to this in its report.
Finally, the Committee was advised that, in Northern Ireland, postal ballot papers can be returned by post or handed in to electoral offices. However, there is no provision for postal ballot papers to be handed in to polling stations, as is the case in Great Britain. The Committee gave some consideration to this anomaly and recommends in its report that provision should be made for postal ballot papers to be handed in to polling stations in Northern Ireland.
I commend the report to the Assembly.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly approves the report of the Committee of the Centre ‘Report into the proposal to record the return of postal ballot papers’ (01/01R) and agrees that it be submitted to the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions as a report of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Golden jubilee

Mr Maurice Morrow: I beg to move
That this Assembly calls on the Minister of Education in this, Her Majesty’s Golden Jubilee year, to ensure provision is made for each primary school pupil in Northern Ireland to be provided with a suitable souvenir to mark this important and historic occasion.
In any circumstances, whether individually or collectively, celebrating 50 years of service is a special and, indeed, a unique occasion — and for no one more so than Her Majesty The Queen, who has served this nation with dignity and responsibility during the past 50 years. Our constitutional monarchy has brought stability to our United Kingdom, and Her Majesty has provided much wise counsel to the many Prime Ministers who have served her during her reign. Today we want to act with dignity and mark this special occasion in the manner that I feel it deserves.
This motion is not intended to be either divisive or offensive to anyone. It is intended to recognise the service given to the United Kingdom by Her Majesty, and it calls for this special year in our history to be marked in a way that is simple, yet reflective. Our children should be given the opportunity to receive a souvenir to commemorate the 50 years that Her Majesty has spent as head of state, just as children were given a souvenir at the time of the Queen’s coronation. I suspect that many in the Assembly can recall that time and can look back to when they were at school and were given a memento to mark the Queen’s coronation. They may not have placed much emphasis on it at the time. Indeed, they may not have seen it as important. However, having spoken to many who can recall that occasion — [Interruption].

Mr Eamonn ONeill: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you explain to the House the use of a Dispatch Box for Members? Is it available for all Members to use, or are we setting a new precedent this morning?

Mr Speaker: Properly speaking, the use of Lecterns, in lieu of Dispatch Boxes, is for Ministers when speaking as Ministers, if they choose — and not all Ministers choose to use one — or Chairpersons of Committees, if they choose, when presenting on behalf of their Committees. I see that the matter is no longer an issue.

Mr Maurice Morrow: Mr Speaker, I humbly apologise to the House for taking advantage. The Box was there, and I thought it would not offend anyone if I used it. I want it recorded that I humbly apologise.

Mr Speaker: Had the Member had 50 years service in the House, no doubt he would have been accorded it.

Mr Maurice Morrow: That demonstrates that I can be humble.
Many types of souvenirs will be created during this special year, and I do not wish to be prescriptive about the type or design of souvenir. I believe that every primary schoolchild should have an opportunity to mark the jubilee tangibly, and if the Department of Education wants some ideas on what should be used, I am prepared to give it some. I suspect that it does not need that.
During the course of this debate there will be those who will say that Her Majesty is the British head of state and, as such, is not acceptable, or that many children could not participate. That is a poor argument. At the outset, I want to say that this should not be forced on every school. The option should be there, and it should be available to those schools and children who wish to avail of it. The Queen is the head of state of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so she is the head of state to everyone who lives in Northern Ireland, regardless of political opinion, religious belief, ethnic origin or anything else that people may feel distinguishes them. We all are her subjects by virtue of where we live — the United Kingdom.
There is no basis for the claim that the majority of primary schoolchildren have no interest in receiving a souvenir in recognition of the Golden Jubilee. I suspect that many schools in the Province would welcome the opportunity to give their pupils a suitable gift. Perhaps some Members are opposed to the motion because to provide such an opportunity would expose the inaccuracy of their claims that children have no interest. I suggest that caution be taken. The Department of Education should not fall into the trap of restricting history and distorting reality. Why should schools not be given the choice of whether or not to present their pupils with a souvenir? Those who vote against the motion will deny every school in the Province that choice. If the Assembly were to reject the motion, it would deny the up-and-coming generation the unique opportunity to have a memento of the Queen’s Golden Jubilee for years to come.
Some said, during the run-up to the debate, that the motion involves an element of flag-waving or an attempt to get one over on someone. That is not in my thoughts. It is an opportunity to recognise 50 years in which the Queen has served the United Kingdom with distinction and honour.
We are supposed to be living in an era of parity of esteem in which everybody’s view is of equal status. I hope that the House will seize the opportunity to demonstrate tangibly to the Minister of Education that schools should have a choice and that the Department of Education should place at schools’ disposal a suitable souvenir to mark the Queen’s Golden Jubilee. We ask for no more, and I trust that Members will support the motion.

Mr Speaker: I have received one amendment to the motion, which is published on the Marshalled List of amendments in the name of Mrs E Bell.

Mrs Eileen Bell: I beg to move the following amendment: In line 2, after "ensure" insert:
"where the board of governors deems it appropriate, that".
One of my earliest childhood memories is of being in a small parlour house in the Falls Road area, watching the Queen’s coronation together with many other families. I do not remember much about the ceremony, but I remember how the young Queen was serious and controlled. She realised that she had a demanding life in front of her. That was the general feeling in the room, and nothing but tribute was paid to her. As time has passed, those thoughts have, in many ways, been proved correct. I hope that this jubilee year will be another resounding memory for all of us and, of course, for the Queen. The death of the Queen’s sister was tragic, but it is to be hoped that she will still be able to take pride in her Golden Jubilee year.
I remember the Queen’s Silver Jubilee. I lived in Windsor, where we held an enjoyable street party. The participating families were of different backgrounds, colours and creeds, but were united in their good wishes for the young Queen. Again I recall thinking that it would have been great if we could have had similar scenes throughout Northern Ireland in celebration of a life lived in duty and loyalty towards all citizens.
This year should be celebrated in Northern Ireland as much or as little as people wish. Ample opportunity should be given to note, or to not note, the historic occasion. Therefore, I hope that Members will view my amendment without prejudice, if that is possible in Northern Ireland. My reason for tabling the amendment is that I have several misgivings about the motion as it stands, not least on monetary grounds.
If the Department of Education is to ensure that a memento will be provided, it must be clear that schools will not bear the cost themselves. The Department must refer schools to the jubilee fund, which would allay budgetary pressures. In addition, district councils could be asked to become involved with local schools, because they too have had budget specifications for commemorative celebrations this year.
The decision for each school should be made by its board of governors, which is responsible to that school’s pupils and staff. That board would know the feelings and circumstances of the school, its pupils, staff and parents. That would not be discriminatory, nor would it contravene equality Directives. It would simply be an understanding that each school will be different in its observance.
As regards different agendas, I suspect that the motion might produce attitudes that have more to do with the identity of the Minister of Education than with an acknowledgement of the Queen’s work and commitment — I am aware that that does not apply to the proposer. I appeal to all shades of opinion in the Chamber not to use the Golden Jubilee as an opportunity for another instance of intolerance or backward thinking. Rather, they should view it as a fitting tribute to Queen Elizabeth II on reaching her Golden Jubilee.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I inform the House, Mr Morrow and others that it is not the Department of Education, but the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure that is taking the lead in the Golden Jubilee celebrations — I am, however, sure that most people are aware of that. That was agreed by the Executive some time ago. I have a budget line, which the Department has been working on for many months. There has been an enormous response from across the Province.
By your leave, Mr Speaker, I intend to make a statement next week to fully inform Members of the position in respect of the Golden Jubilee celebrations, outlining the many applications that the Department has received and the types of celebrations planned. I have not done so this week by agreement with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport — the lead Department in London — and other devolved Administrations throughout the United Kingdom, as a mark of respect following the death of Princess Margaret last Saturday. None of my colleagues in the devolved Administrations or the Government in London will be making announcements on the Golden Jubilee this week.
I regret that this motion is being debated this week. It is unseemly that we should discuss it at this time. It would be unseemly to become involved in divisive political debate on the issue. The motion could have been debated next week or in previous weeks. It would have been better had Mr Morrow and his party followed the lead of the devolved Administrations and the Government in London by not getting involved in the issue as a mark of respect. For that reason, my party will not be taking part in the debate today.

Mr Tommy Gallagher: I strongly oppose the motion as a Member of the Assembly and as someone with a background in education. It is ridiculous that such a motion should come before the Assembly today, given that we all know that a variety of identities and allegiances exists in this community. I presume that the motion refers to one of the two main identities. However, many others do not want to receive the souvenir to which the motion refers. It is proposed in the motion that that souvenir should be imposed on those who do not want to receive it. We should all oppose that.
The SDLP is committed, as it has always been, to the creation of a just, tolerant and pluralist society. We should all know the dangers and drawbacks of imposing things on others, especially on those from different backgrounds.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)
If I understood Mr Morrow correctly, I heard him refer to a pack that was provided for children by the education system in the coronation year. That was 50 years ago and, fortunately for all of us, things have moved on both politically and educationally. At that time, the education system discouraged the teaching of Irish history. In hindsight, we all know that that was a mistake, and one that we do not wish to repeat.
Speaking as an educationalist, I know that many subjects, such as mathematics, economics and languages, have a place in the education system. However, education in its truest sense goes further than that. Education is about the fundamental worth of each individual and the common good. It is about imparting the values to which I referred earlier — justice, tolerance and pluralism. Since education should be about the common good, that includes the common good of people of whatever identity, whatever their allegiance or political background. That is how we should manage education, and we should all aspire to that.
The motion threatens that notion, so I oppose it. If we want to have an education system that provides a safe haven for all, regardless of religious or political persuasion, we should reject the motion.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I wish to inform the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure — and he should be careful about what he says — that the motion was tabled weeks ago. It was not tabled following Princess Margaret’s death. His party did not approach Mr Morrow and ask him to withdraw the motion this week, yet Mr McGimpsey castigates the DUP for moving the motion, and is lauded by people from the opposite side of the House for doing so. That shows the spirit of both the UUP and the SDLP. If they do not get their way, they think that they can gag Members of the Assembly. This is an elected Assembly, and it is the only part of the Assembly that has any degree of democracy. I resent what the Minister said. If he is concerned about a motion being tabled, and he feels that he has to wait until the following week to tell people what he is going to do, that is his business. However, he has no right to castigate the Democratic Unionist Party for moving the motion.
I find Mr Gallagher’s attitude amazing. He talked about a "safe haven" in the schools, yet people of his religion boycott the state education system.

Mr Tommy Gallagher: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Is it a point of order, Mr Gallagher?

Mr Tommy Gallagher: Yes, it is a point of order. I spoke about an education system that supports a society that provides a safe haven for all. I did not quite put it as — [Interruption].

Mr Donovan McClelland: That is not really a point of order.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: The hon Member can say what he likes. When we read Hansard in the morning we shall find out what he said.
Mr Gallagher’s particular belief is that schools should be segregated and the people with whom he worships should all go to a school that is separate from the state system.
That is a fact of life, which we all accept. If people want to have a separate school system, they are entitled to have it. Some people would say that they are also entitled to pay for it. That is a different story, and not for debate today.
I also find it amazing that the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure is so concerned about this matter, given that, evidently, he was unconcerned about Princess Margaret’s death. He knows that if the First Minister, supported by the Deputy First Minister, had moved a motion yesterday, we could have paid our tributes to Princess Margaret as they were paid in another place.

Mr Donovan McClelland: You are straying somewhat from the motion, Dr Paisley.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: It is relevant to what Mr McGimpsey said. He should not have brought up those matters. He criticised us for our attitude to the death of Princess Margaret. I am entitled to defend myself. I am sure that you would be the first to defend my right to defend myself. We have to be realistic about this matter. I made my views known in the Chamber. We should have had a moment of silence. I noticed that they stood in silence in the imperial House at Westminster. I thought there would be conformity in all places. Evidently, that was not to be.
The motion is not asking for anything to be forced on anyone. It asks that the Department of Education should make a memento of this important event available to every schoolchild. If Mr McGimpsey has so much money in his kitty that he wants to pay for it, that is well and good. Nobody will argue with that.
It will be a long time before anyone will be able to celebrate another fiftieth anniversary of a Queen. Monarchs do not usually reign for 50 years. This is an unusual and special event. I go back quite a bit — more than 50 years. I am sure, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you also go back quite a bit. [Laughter] Members of the House should not despise age. If one has a halo as a result of one’s age, it should not be despised. Some of us are fortunate to hold on to what little hair we have.
I remember the Silver Jubilee of King George V. We were all presented with a special mug, which I still have. I appreciate the fact that I was alive then and was given that mug. Everyone went to Ballymena Showgrounds, where Ballymena Urban District Council, as it was called in those days, put on a grand display of games and other events, and every child received a memento. That was a most acceptable thing to do. People who do not want to receive a memento are quite entitled to say that they do not want one. I know of one school in Ballymena where, on the direction of the schoolmaster, the pupils took the mugs out and broke them against a wall. There were different views about these issues, even in those days. That will no doubt continue.
There is nothing in the motion that states that this should be forced on anyone. There was no need for the amendment to be tabled. The boards of governors will have control over the distribution of such a memento.
Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom — we are not in the Irish Republic yet. A Sinn Féin Member has told us that it already has a majority. In the next election we shall see who has the majority in this country. When I was a boy I was told that we would be outbred, but Protestant mothers have children too. The average Protestant family is much bigger today than it was when I was being brought up. The average Protestant family had two children, but now the average is four. There are those in this country who believe that their children should receive a memento, and they are entitled to want that. If that is going to bankrupt the education system, it must be almost bankrupt already.
Those arguments are puerile, but mine is sensible. I believe that most people on both sides of the religious divide want a memento, and they are entitled to that. The parents and the boards of governors should make that decision in the schools.

Mr Alban Maginness: I am unconvinced by Mr Morrow’s arguments and his protestations of innocence on the motion. The motion is not about souvenirs; it is about party political advantage for the DUP. I agree with the Minister that this is not an appropriate time to table the motion. The SDLP has no problem whatsoever with people in Northern Ireland who wish to commemorate the Queen’s jubilee; we support that. The former Minister of Finance and Personnel, Mr Durkan — now the Deputy First Minister — made funding available for that. The Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure will use that money to celebrate the Queen’s jubilee in an appropriate fashion.
The motion is mischievous, cynical, party political, unnecessary and inappropriate in the present circumstances. It has not been costed, and it is wrong for Members to table a motion asking a Department to expend money without properly costing the financial impact. There are 174,000 primary schoolchildren in Northern Ireland, so approximately £200,000 to £500,000 would be spent. The Department of Education could spend that money more appropriately by assisting those children in the learning process.
The SDLP is unconvinced by the DUP’s arguments. We believe that it is an example of its desire to impose a view of society upon all the people of Northern Ireland without regard to their political tradition or sensitivities. Therefore we believe that this is not a good motion, and it is inappropriate in the present circumstances. We believe in parity of esteem, and the Executive and the Departments should exercise that parity of esteem in dealing with the public. The motion does not do that. It is not sensitive, and it does not advance, in any way, goodwill and harmonious relations in our society.
However, despite our misgivings about the motion and given the Minister’s announcement this morning, the SDLP believes that it would not be appropriate to oppose it in the present circumstances, so we shall abstain on the motion. On behalf of the SDLP, I believe that that is the most appropriate course of action. We shall also abstain on the amendment.
In conclusion, let me emphasise that the SDLP has no problems with people who wish to celebrate the Golden Jubilee in an appropriate manner. The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure has an allocation for that; it is the appropriate way to deal with it, and we support that.

Mr Jim Shannon: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to support the motion. This is the fiftiet yeir fae Quean Elspeth cum heid o the Kingrik; it is an importin tid for ilkane o us. The’r juist the five ither monarchs paregal wi whit she’s eftir winnin til, an it’s e’en mair poignant in the licht o recent events the lyke o the affgaun o the Princess Mairgret. It gars ye think on juist whit wey the wumman that heids this lede haes putten ower throu the ondings o modren lyfe, bringin bairns intil the warld an the IRA’s ettil at murtherin hir in the 1980s in the course o the bygaun for ti merk hir birthday in Hyde Park. It’s a testament til Hir Maijestie that she’s haen the virr an smeddum ti gang on — for aw whit she’s haed ti thole an the thraets til hir lyfe as cam forrit in the bygaen 50 yeir.
This is the fiftieth anniversary of the accession of Queen Elizabeth II, and it is a momentous occasion for us all. Only five other monarchs have ever achieved this, and it is even more poignant in the light of the recent death of Princess Margaret.
It is remarkable that the woman who heads this nation has weathered the storms of modern life — as a queen and as a mother — and also the IRA’s attempt to kill her during a parade celebrating her birthday in Hyde Park in the 1980s. It is a testament that Her Majesty has had the strength of character to carry on despite the trials and tribulations, and the threats to her life that have been made over the past 50 years.
Her Majesty’s inspiration to all children is of supreme importance so that they can carry out their duties as citizens with the dignity and commitment that she has shown over the past 50 years. It is for this reason that children across the Province — no matter what their religion or political background — should have some souvenir to remember a momentous occasion that may not be repeated in their lifetime. The occasion should be marked by something that the children can keep forever and that they can pass on to their children and to their children’s children. Although we may have different political outlooks, it is imperative that all children are aware of all the traditions of this island, and that includes its association with the royal family. It would be honourable for the Minister to put aside his own political prejudice and doctrine and to think of what is good for the whole country. The party that the Minister belongs to harps on about embracing other cultures on the island of Ireland — let him prove it by giving children a suitable and lasting souvenir of the Queen’s jubilee.
Yesterday in the Chamber Sinn Féin got its way and did not commemorate the passing of Princess Margaret with a minute’s silence. However, Sinn Féin Members stood in silence for Americans and other nationals that were killed on 11 September. They stood for a minute’s silence last month for the murdered postman, Daniel McColgan. Is it too much for them to accept that the royal family is not responsible for their problems and to show a little respect for the head of the country’s sister?
Perhaps Sinn Féin does not like to admit that there is a huge interest in the royal family. One of the most popular magazines in the Republic of Ireland is called ‘Majesty’, and its appeal is to those who venerate a set of people that have everything that we shall never have: the position, elegance and lifestyle that we should all like to enjoy. Many residents of the Republic are as much in awe of the royal family and its nuances as the Unionist community is.
Every little girl across Northern Ireland, be she Protestant, Roman Catholic, Hindu or Muslim, dreams about being a princess and looks to real royals to infuse her dreams with a little inspiration and glamour. A souvenir is one way of giving those wannabe princesses a token that will bring them within breathing distance of their dream.

Mr Barry McElduff: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Ní nach ionadh, beidh mise ag labhairt in éadan an rúin, agus, mar a dúirt mé, ní cuid iontais ar bith sin. I rise to speak against the motion — which is not surprising. I listened to what Mr McGimpsey said about the timing and unsuitability of the motion. Given the circumstances of this week, there is certainly an issue there.
I am charged with interpreting the motion from an Irish Republican standpoint, and I am happy to do that. I respect the views of others, but, equally, I expect Sinn Féin’s views — and those of Nationalists, Republicans and those who do not regard themselves as Unionists — to be similarly listened to.
I have no problem with the celebration of this event by people who think that it is important. By the same token, I choose to commemorate the Easter Rising of 1916. As I have said before, 2003 is the bicentenary of the execution of Robert Emmet. Those are important historical events from a Republican perspective. We reasonably expect that the same level of recognition should be accorded to our historically important events.
In England, as well as in Ireland, many people ask about the relevance of the British monarchy in today’s society. My opinion, which I suspect will not be respected, is that the British monarchy is a relic of Britain’s colonial history — [Interruption].

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Absolute nonsense. Rubbish.

Mr Barry McElduff: That is what the British monarchy is all about — imperialism — [Interruption].

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order. The Member is entitled to be heard.

Mr Barry McElduff: To me, the British monarchy is a relic of Britain’s colonial history.
In 2002 school-age children come from a variety of culturally diverse backgrounds. That was not the case in 1952, but it is the situation today. Unionists should take note of the reality that the majority of school-age children in the Six Counties now come from a Nationalist, Catholic background, as research and statistical experts stated in the ‘Belfast Telegraph’ last evening. Many other sources will attest to that. It is a fact; for some it is, perhaps, an unpalatable reality.
Belfast City Council voted £100,000 to celebrate the British jubilee, yet it is giving nothing to celebrate Saint Patrick’s Day. That needs to be put on the political agenda.
My suggestion is that schools, above all places, should be kept neutral. The Department of Education is charged with providing the best possible education for all our children. It is not charged with celebrating the British monarchy. Allegations have, quite properly, been made that the DUP is playing politics and is flag-waving. Earlier this morning a DUP Member gave an interview about this subject on the BBC, quickly followed by his party leader, who totally opposed the notion that an English Catholic could either marry a British monarch or become a British monarch.
Therein lies the true agenda. This is flag-waving by the DUP; it is a party political agenda. As an Irish Republican — [Interruption].

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order.

Mr Barry McElduff: I will restate. As an Irish Republican my opinion is that the British monarchy is merely a relic of Britain’s colonial past.

Mr Oliver Gibson: We have heard much about many people’s memories of the coronation. This debate is about respect for one of the greatest and most brilliant concepts in the history of civilisation — a constitutional monarchy that allows the people to dictate the terms and thinking of a nation.
Despite Mr McElduff’s rubbish allegations — when he talked about discrimination, or in McNamara’s word, "scandal" — the day Mr McElduff decided to select a wife, he discriminated against, or scandalised, other women.
The constitutional monarchy gives us, as a nation, the ability to defend Catholic, neutral Belgium or to respond to the attack on Poland, which is another Catholic nation. In other words, it is a constitutional monarchy that believes in upholding its agreements. This morning we have seen the direct violation of the Belfast Agreement. The agreement has been proven not to work because Barry McElduff, as spokesman for Sinn Féin, has shown that that party does not respect, or think of accommodating, other precepts or concepts in the Assembly. Sinn Féin has no regard for, or intention of accommodating, the concept of a constitutional monarchy.
I compare the concept of the constitutional monarchy to the concept of blood sacrifice of 1916 that Mr McElduff mentioned, which was epitomised in the celebrations of the 1960s. That blood sacrifice gave us thirty years of mayhem. Perhaps the greatest outworking of that sacrifice occurred in the two months when Sinn Féin/IRA controlled the suicide of 10 of their own people. Nothing matters as long as the blood lust is satisfied.
There is a difference in concepts. I am almost ashamed that the SDLP, which has piggybacked on the IRA for the past 30 years, has said that it does not support the motion. That is probably a form of non-violent boycott, which that party uses as a way out. However, there is a comparison, which has been well demonstrated in the Chamber, between those who wish to respect a constitutional monarch and the precepts, precedence and principles that the monarch embodies and those who respect the blood sacrifice of thirty years of mayhem — epitomised by the deeds of the 1916 rebellion and from 1966 onwards.
I still have my coronation spoon as a memento of those bygone days, when, as a small boy in Omagh, I heard a historic proclamation read from the courthouse steps. It demonstrated the seamless continuity of the monarchy, "The King is dead, long live the Queen." A coronation spoon, which was chromium-plated and probably worthless, is the memento I have to mark the fact that I was there to see the continuation of the concept of constitutional monarchy, which is probably no more perfect than any other human institution.
The death of Princess Margaret occurred this week. Despite her prestige and position, she struggled for many years to accept eventually the idea behind constitutional monarchy, that faith is the all-important personal precept. Therefore, if the Belfast Agreement is so all-accommodating and all-embracing, it should show respect to those Roman Catholics and others, who I believe are still the great majority, who support the idea of constitutional monarchy. If the Assembly cannot accommodate that, it is proof that the vision of blood sacrifice, so well demonstrated by Mr McElduff and supported by the massive contribution from the Minister of Education, is not wide enough to allow people to support the brilliant concept of constitutional monarchy and to respect it for 50 years of stability in this nation.

Rev William McCrea: It is sad and regrettable that there are those in the Chamber today who seek to deny the people, and especially the children, of Northern Ireland the right, honour and privilege to celebrate 50 years of Her Majesty’s reign.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland spoke recently about a cold place for Unionists. Unionists were not even allowed to stand in the Chamber yesterday to mark the death of Princess Margaret. One wonders whether the Chamber is becoming a cold place for Unionists. I am not surprised by the remarks of IRA/Sinn Féin. They tried to murder me, so why should I be surprised that they do not want to celebrate Her Majesty’s reign? On my fortieth birthday I received a bomb. Life is supposed to begin at 40; mine was supposed to end, thanks to the Provisional IRA. Before the celebrated peace process the Provos’ last act was to have been the murder of my wife and children. Therefore nothing that comes from the lips of those who would deny children the right to have a celebratory memento or souvenir surprises me. My children were to have been denied the right to life. Their souvenirs were to have been coffins.
Do not listen to the hypocrisy of Sinn Féin/IRA. The Member from West Tyrone says that schools should be kept neutral. Is this the same individual who campaigned against a member of the royal family visiting a school in Pomeroy, thereby denying children the right to see a royal person in case they might be contaminated if they stood in the same room?

Mr Barry McElduff: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I hope that it is a point of order, Mr McElduff.

Rev William McCrea: Do not worry — I will come back to him if it is not.

Mr Barry McElduff: It is a point of order on the grounds of untruth, Mr Deputy Speaker. I had no involvement whatsoever in the matter that the Member is referring to.
12.00

Rev William McCrea: Does anyone believe that? It was Sinn Féin/IRA and, to be quite honest, they are all from the same litter. Sinn Féin/IRA denied a royal personage the right to come to a school in my constituency. If they could not let the children even see a person coming to talk about education, why should we be surprised that they would not allow a child the right to have a souvenir?
It is interesting to note that, despite all this Republican anti-monarch and anti-Queen propaganda, people who support that propaganda love to run to the post office or the bank to get Her Majesty The Queen on banknotes. They love her very much when it comes to the day for paying out. That shows the brass neck of Republicanism and just exactly what Republicans stand for. However, I can understand it.
I can even understand the SDLP’s perspective. I must challenge some remarks made by Alban Maginness. He said that the motion proposed the imposition of a souvenir on the children. The motion says
"That this Assembly calls on the Minister of Education in this, Her Majesty’s Golden Jubilee year, to ensure provision is made for each primary school pupil in Northern Ireland to be provided with a suitable souvenir to mark this important and historic occasion."
Nothing is being imposed — a provision is being made. In other words, if a school and the children want a souvenir, provision is made for it. In fact, the imposition is coming from the other side, because the SDLP suggests imposing on the Unionist family the denial of a right to a souvenir.
Other Members have spoken about what they received for the coronation. I remember Her Majesty’s celebrations back then. I was only a wee nipper. I was dressed up as a sailor boy. My sister was dressed up as an angel, and my other sister, who was dressed up as Little Bo Peep with her sheep, won first prize in Stewartstown, County Tyrone.
We have those memories, but we are not allowed to have them any more. It is only one road, one side. Therefore it is an imposition. However, it is an imposition on the Unionist community, because the motion does not impose anything on any child from the Nationalist or Republican communities. There is no imposition; the motion makes provision for each child if the school desires it. What is wrong with that? I do not care whether it is the Department of Education or the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure that provides the souvenir.
I can understand the SDLP’s perspective, but it was important to set the record straight because Mr Alban Maginness misunderstood. Having removed that misunderstanding, I hope that Mr Maginness and his Colleagues will not sit on the sidelines, but will come with the Unionist population rather than deny them their right.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Mr Gallagher denounced the motion and outlined his opposition to it in strong and strident tones. Mr Maginness then said that they were not to vote, that it would not do to vote and that it was not the time to vote. It seems very strange that from one voice we hear the denunciation of these evil Unionists who would dare to do such a thing, and then his leader — or half-leader, or whatever he is — says that they have all to go home and not vote at all.

Rev William McCrea: The fact is that he desired to be deputy leader but did not actually make it.
I found Alban Maginness’s tones more conciliatory than Mr Gallagher’s. Divided voices within the SDLP may be common, but I trust that sense and reason will prevail in this. However, it is right to put the record straight, because Mr Maginness’s argument for rejecting the motion was that it was an imposition.
This motion makes no imposition upon anyone. It makes provision. I understand to a certain extent the SDLP viewpoint, but I cannot understand the route taken to the House today by the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure. If anything is to be regretted or deplored, it is the position of the Ulster Unionist spokesperson in this debate. It is true that flags are being taken down in the councils, but now it seems that that same party does not want to give children the right to receive a souvenir of Her Majesty’s Golden Jubilee from the Department of Education. That is a disgrace. Minister McGimpsey must have got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning, come to the House in a fit of pique and let his tongue get away before his brain went into gear, so ill-considered was what he said.
To say the least, it is pathetic to use the death of Princess Margaret as a reason. That is obnoxious, revolting and scurrilous. I remind the House that Her Royal Highness was still alive when my hon Friend put this motion before the Business Committee, where it was accepted and supported by the Ulster Unionist members. Perhaps Minister McGimpsey did not talk to some of his Colleagues to find out what happened at the Business Committee. It is usual to do that, because there are several voices from that party on the Committee.
That he came to the Chamber this morning and abused the death of Princess Margaret in that way is to be regretted. I trust that before the end of this debate the Minister will do the honourable thing and withdraw those despicable, scurrilous and needless remarks in which he tried to abort and destroy the motion before this House.
I have no doubt whatsoever that we will watch with care the various activities to be announced by his Department for Her Majesty’s celebration. It is certainly not his right to deny children their right to a souvenir of Her Majesty’s reign.
We have a right to be proud of the 50 years’ service given by Her Majesty to the United Kingdom. She has given that service with honour. Like any other mother she has had her heartaches, but she has carried herself with great dignity, and she has ruled with honour. My hon Friend has today brought to the House a simple yet proper and appropriate motion to mark Her Majesty’s Golden Jubilee. I trust that on better thought the rest of the House will give it support.

Mr Martin McGuinness: I am sorry that I was not present at the beginning of the debate. I was at the launch of the Anne Frank History for Today exhibition at Queen’s University Students’ Union. I apologise for that; the debate was not expected to start until later.
I have only a few things to say in response. It is important that events such as this do not prove divisive. Participation should be therefore a matter of choice, and I support that approach.
The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure is co-ordinating the Golden Jubilee celebrations. I know that the Minister has taken a close interest. He is keen to encourage the involvement of schools, should they choose to become involved. There is a range of events and opportunities in which any parents’ association or parent-teacher association can choose to participate.
The main event for schools is a special poetry competition that is open to pupils aged seven to 18. It is divided into three age groups and has the Golden Jubilee as its theme. Schools may submit up to three entries in each age category. The subject matter of poems can range from Queen Elizabeth of England to social or historical events from the past 50 years. Therefore, there is a great deal of scope for the budding poets. Mr McGimpsey attended the launch of the competition in Buckingham Palace in early October last year. The closing date for entries is 31 March.
Schools and parents’ associations may run their own event for the jubilee; they may receive special funding for that purpose. Applications can be made to the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, and several primary and post-primary schools have already made applications.
I appreciate some Members’ views on my Department’s provision of a souvenir for primary schoolchildren here. However, I see no justification in spending public funds that would be more effectively used in the classroom.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Member to refer to the Queen as the Queen of England? She is the Queen of the United Kingdom. Of course, he would not believe in that, but he is happy to be a so-called Minister of the Crown.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I am not sure that that was a point of order.

Mrs Eileen Bell: This has been an interesting debate that has almost acknowledged the intention of the motion. However, I was right to predict that the debate would also border on somewhat intolerant attitudes.
I am aware that, as the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure said, the debate may have been ill-timed. Nevertheless, it took place, and I assert that my amendment would make specific what the DUP Members hinted at. That is, a souvenir would not be obligatory; each school would make its own decision. Therefore, all schools would be able to deal with the issue appropriately. In the interest of inclusiveness, I ask the mover of the motion, Mr Morrow, to include the amendment in his motion. However, if he does not agree to that, I beg Members to support the amendment.

Mr Maurice Morrow: I thank those who participated in the debate. It has stimulated some interesting comments, and I sincerely thank those who found it within themselves to support the motion. They have fully grasped what we are trying to do, and I acknowledge their remarks. All Members have expressed themselves exceptionally well.
I listened intently to Mr Gallagher. He may be some things to some people, but he has a habit of coming across in a belligerent, sectarian way. Of course, that is the way that he is made, and he cannot hide that. He came across in that way today. However, he should, perhaps, have listened to his comrade, Mr Alban Maginness, because he was speaking in a completely different direction. That is a matter for Mr Gallagher and Mr Maginness. Perhaps they owe each other something, but whatever that may be, they should sort it out somewhere else and not in the Chamber.
Dr McCrea tried to analyse what Members were saying, and he said that there was a divide in the House. He said that the comments of those who call themselves Nationalists were, perhaps, understandable. He then turned his attention to this side of the House and addressed the comments that were made here. I am deeply offended by Mr McGimpsey’s remarks. He appealed to the lowest common denominator. As Dr McCrea suggested, Mr McGimpsey should do the honourable thing and get to his feet to withdraw those scurrilous and tragic remarks. I will make way for him to do that. It is beyond contempt to try to make political capital from the Princess’s death. I ask Mr McGimpsey whether he would like me to give way so that he can withdraw his remarks — his refusal speaks volumes.
When I submitted the motion, Princess Margaret was alive. The Business Committee accepted the motion. Mr McGimpsey’s party colleagues are here and can confirm that. If we had known or received any direction, we would have re-examined the situation. This House will know how to treat Mr McGimpsey for using that event in such a way. More importantly, the public will form its own opinion.
I did not table this motion to put anyone on the spot. There are plenty of ways and opportunities for politicians in this Chamber to put the Opposition on the spot. I was determined that I would not use this motion to do that. I care little whether it is Mr McGimpsey’s Department, Mr McGuinness’s Department or anyone else’s Department that makes this provision. I want this House to ensure that a directive is given today to one of the Ministers so that schoolchildren will have the opportunity to pick up a simple memento that they can look back on in years to come and say that they received it in the Queen’s Golden Jubilee year. If that is a political or offensive suggestion, it goes right over my head. I want to assure people that politics is not the driving force behind this motion.
I cannot accept Eileen Bell’s amendment for one simple reason: the amendment seeks to put the onus on the boards of governors. That is not right. The provision should be made so that those who wish to do so may take it up. It is not going to be forced down anyone’s throat.

Mr David Ford: The Member said that the school should decide whether to take up this provision. Who is the competent authority in any school, if not the board of governors?

Mr Maurice Morrow: The amendment clearly says that this would be the decision solely of the board of governors. That is not right. Provision should be made available so that those who wish to take up this offer can do so. It should not be the case that each board of governors must go to the Department to say whether it wishes to take up this provision. The Department of Education or the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure should make the provision. The schools should know that it is available and how to take up the offer.

Rev William McCrea: Does my hon Friend agree that parents should make the decision? They should have the right to choose. Why should a headmaster or a board of governors deny children the right to take up this provision, simply because they do not feel that it is politically correct? There is availability through the schools. Therefore, parents and children should avail of it, rather than let boards of governors make that decision for them. I have been a member of boards of governors for several years, and I believe that some on those boards would deny children the right to a souvenir. It is a decision for parents and their children.

Mr Maurice Morrow: I thank the Member for his exceptionally well-made point. No further comment on the matter is necessary.

Mrs Eileen Bell: I did not say what Rev William McCrea claimed that I said. If a matter such as this is brought before a school’s board of governors — and each board has at least two parent governors — the decision will not be taken at one meeting; it will be referred to the staff, pupils and parents.

Rev William McCrea: No, it will not.

Mrs Eileen Bell: Yes, it will. I have been in education for many years. It may be different in the South Eastern Education and Library Board, or on Mr McCrea’s board, but that is what we do. We never make a decision without referring it to parents. That may be wrong in the Member’s eyes, but that is the practice. Why does Maurice Morrow simply not say, "I do not want to accept the amendment"? I would rather he said that — it would be more honest.

Mr Maurice Morrow: I should like to comment on the Minister of Education’s remarks on the expenditure of public funds. I note that he does not have the same inhibition about delivering funds for the Irish language. This side of the House has very little appetite for that. Therefore, his remarks hold little water. I also understand that other Departments spend considerable amounts of money on such things — they put it down to spending on culture. If they want to create a sectarian divide with this matter — and I have no desire to do that — then I ask them to acknowledge others’ culture and aspirations.
Question put, 
The Assembly divided: Ayes 5; Noes 23
Ayes
Eileen Bell, David Ford, Kieran McCarthy, Monica McWilliams, Jane Morrice.
Noes
Fraser Agnew, Paul Berry, Mervyn Carrick, Wilson Clyde, Nigel Dodds, Boyd Douglas, Oliver Gibson, David Hilditch, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Robert McCartney, William McCrea, Maurice Morrow, Ian R K Paisley, Edwin Poots, Iris Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Jim Shannon, Denis Watson, Peter Weir, Jim Wells, Sammy Wilson.
Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put.
The Assembly divided: Ayes 26; Noes 11
Ayes
Fraser Agnew, Paul Berry, Mervyn Carrick, Wilson Clyde, Nigel Dodds, Boyd Douglas, Oliver Gibson, David Hilditch, Derek Hussey, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Robert McCartney, William McCrea, Monica McWilliams, Jane Morrice, Maurice Morrow, Ian R K Paisley, Edwin Poots, Iris Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Jim Shannon, Denis Watson, Peter Weir, Jim Wells, Sammy Wilson.
Noes
Michelle Gildernew, John Kelly, Alex Maskey, Barry McElduff, Martin McGuinness, Gerry McHugh, Pat McNamee, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Dara O’Hagan, Sue Ramsey.
Main Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly calls on the Minister of Education in this, Her Majesty’s Golden Jubilee year, to ensure provision is made for each primary school pupil in Northern Ireland to be provided with a suitable souvenir to mark this important and historic occasion.
The sitting was suspended at 12.42 pm.
On resuming (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair) —

‘Protecting Children, Supporting Parents’ (2000)

Dr Esmond Birnie: I beg to move
That this Assembly calls on the Minister of Finance and Personnel to take note of the outcome of the consultation in England and Wales by the Department of Health on the law on the physical correction of children in their homes, ‘Protecting Children, Supporting Parents’ (2000), which decided not to change the legislation.
Why this motion at this time? The subject is a crucial and emotive one, although it must be said that attendance in the House at the moment might suggest otherwise. However, we know from wider debate on the issue that that is the case. During the debate, there will, no doubt, be tremendous unity on the need to prevent cruelty and abuse of children. That is an aim that we all share. However, there will be differences regarding what is in the long-term interests of children.
The basic motivation for the motion was provided by the Office of Law Reform’s public consultation, which was titled ‘Physical Punishment in the Home’. That document implied that the so-called reasonable chastisement defence, which allows, within limits, parents to smack their children, should be either totally removed or severely qualified. However, in November 2001, during the course of that period of public consultation, which finished a few weeks ago, the Department of Health in London completed its own parallel consultation and decision-making in the same field. It concluded that no legislative change was necessary. My motivation in moving the motion is to urge the Minister of Finance and Personnel to pay strong attention to the decision in London.
My first reason for commending the result of the consultation in London is that the local Office of Law Reform document does not seem to have been genuinely open to all the options. On page 1, the then Minister of Finance and Personnel writes that
"This paper does not take sides".
That statement does not sit well with the subsequent comment on page 38 that
"We must change our law in some way".
Page 52 is emphatic. It states that
"It is clear that the most obvious ways to mitigate the adverse impacts identified and to better promote equality of opportunity would be to remove the defence of reasonable chastisement from our law".
If that is indeed the view of the former Minister of Finance and Personnel, what room is left for consultation that is open to all options, which should logically include the option of leaving the law unchanged?
A second reason to call for note to be taken of the decision of the Department of Health in London is that the use of research and statistical evidence in the Office of Law Reform paper further adds to the impression of a quest for a predetermined outcome. The document specifically asks for views on the evidence presented. Research in 1998 by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) showed that 88% of those surveyed across the United Kingdom viewed smacking as sometimes necessary. Contrast that with the survey quoted by the local consultation, in which only 34% were recorded as supporting "physical punishment". In fact, the apparently low level of support in Northern Ireland may have been strongly determined by the way in which the question was worded — "physical punishment such as smacking or hitting". To most people, hitting is much more violent than smacking, hence the much lower figure of support here.
As wide a range of scientific evidence as possible should be considered. In contrast, when on page 10 of the Office of Law Reform’s paper it claims to summarise the evidence on the effects of physical correction of children, it relied entirely, at least as far as the footnotes suggest, on just two academics, Dr Penelope Leach and Prof Christina Lyon.
It is not made clear that both those people have strong links to the lobby favouring the criminalisation of smacking. In 1993 Penelope Leach said:
"Social policy cannot always await rigorous research evidence".
Moreover, their research has been strongly criticised by other academics. Prof Eysenck stated in 1993:
"Leach’s account is too one-sided to form the basis of responsible recommendations to law giving bodies".
I also wonder why the document fails to register the research of other academics such as Dr Baumrind and Dr Larzelere. Dr Baumrind has written a review of the research evidence for the American journal ‘Paediatrics’. She concludes that a blanket injunction against physical punishment by parents is not scientifically supportable. A further review by Dr Larzelere and also published in ‘Paediatrics’ in 1996 found that out of 11 studies of parental discipline most — six — were found to have beneficial outcomes for children, one had a negative outcome and the remainder were neutral.
A further reason for following the Department of Health in London in retaining the reasonable chastisement defence in law is that the A versus the United Kingdom case at the European Court of Human Rights need not imply any further change in the law. That is a fundamental point. In spite of what the Office of Law Reform/ Department of Finance and Personnel document seems to imply, there is no imperative on the Administration in Northern Ireland, any more than its counterparts in London or Edinburgh, to allow a hard case to make bad law.
The 1998 A versus the United Kingdom case is a very peculiar and sad one. The boy known as "A" had allegedly threatened his brother with a knife, and he had also stolen something. His stepfather then beat him on several occasions with a garden cane. At the stepfather’s trial at Lincoln Crown Court in 1994 the jury deemed that the stepfather was using moderate and reasonable punishment. Subsequently, the anti-smacking lobby group, end physical punishment of children (EPOCH), sponsored A’s case in the European Court of Human Rights. The court found that A had been treated in an unacceptable manner under article 3 of the Convention on Human Rights. However, the European judges did not deliver any general pronouncement on the state of the law in England or the UK in this area. The Department of Health summary provided in ‘Protecting Children, Supporting Parents’ (2000), paragraph 4.5 states:
"The Court’s decision was based on the facts of the case before it. The ruling applied to that case only".
There is, therefore, no need to amend existing laws. The laws on assault should have been enough to result in a conviction in the A case, and there is therefore no need to remove the longstanding defence of reasonable chastisement. Moreover, under the Human Rights Act 2000, all UK courts must now take into account judgements from Strasbourg, including the A case. The Office of Law Reform admits that this has already happened in the case of Regina versus H 2001. That court of appeal case, heard in April 2001, developed the common law for England and Wales to take account of the A case.
A further major point is that those who argue for an outright or partial ban on smacking may have misunderstood, or misused, section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 on equality of opportunity. The Office of Law Reform has a responsibility under section 75 to promote equality of opportunity with respect to age, among other things. As a public body it has that responsibility. The document seems to imply that that responsibility should be read across to the position of parents relative to children. Is that not a fundamental misreading of the purpose of section 75? It neglects the extent to which adults and children are, by definition, unequal in certain key respects.
It is therefore an absurd use of the law to argue that smacking equals inequality and that hence smacking is illegal. Children, unlike parents, are subject to reasonable chastisement. However, they also cannot buy alcohol or cigarettes under a certain age, and nor can they vote, drive or get married.

Mr Robert McCartney: Not only are children prevented from doing a number of things, but they are also, by virtue of their age, protected by the law as it stands, in a way that adults are not.

Dr Esmond Birnie: I thank the Member for that valid point. Moreover, there is incoherence in the consultation document. On page 16 it seems to favour non-physical methods of correcting children, such as time out, grounding and withdrawal of treats. If it is to correct a child physically, then — with regard to section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 — in due course it will be argued that it is just as unequal and unlawful to correct them by non-physical means. The logic must apply if we start from the premise.
Most parents in Northern Ireland would be appalled at the prospect of legal change that could criminalise the use of moderate and reasonable chastisement. In moving this motion, I oppose the amendment in Ms Lewsley’s name. In that respect, the Governments of Scotland and the Republic of Ireland have proposed bans on smacking, but they are not yet law. We will have to wait and see whether they move in that direction.
The document relied heavily on arguments drawn from human rights and equality, but what about the human rights of many parents who believe in a family ethos where moderate physical chastisement can be used in a loving manner? Of course, no one is defending violent abuse or bodily harm, but I want to defend the human rights of those families who wish to practise moderate physical chastisement. If the law is changed to ban smacking, some of us may have to make the difficult choice between following the law and following our consciences.
The Minister should pay heed to the decision taken by his counterparts in Westminster. As the Minister of State, Department of Health, Jacqui Smith, said on 8 November 2001:
"We do not believe that any further change in the law at this time would be appropriate — it would neither command widespread public support nor be capable of consistent enforcement".
Those points, which are made in the case of England and Wales, apply with equal strength to Northern Ireland.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I have received one amendment to the motion, which is published on the Marshalled List.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: I beg to move the following amendment: In line 3, delete all after "Department of Health" and insert
" and also of international practices including those in Scotland and the Republic of Ireland, in relation to the law on the physical correction of children in their homes".
I ask the House to support the amendment. It is essential that we identify and analyse models of best practice, current thinking and research in many other jurisdictions, not just England and Wales. We have to consider the development of best practice in line with international standards. The protection of children is of paramount importance in our society, and the issues around the physical punishment of a child have provoked an interesting and wide-ranging debate.
Children should be entitled to the same protection in law as adults. Domestic violence is still a common occurrence here, and witnessing this type of behaviour in the home has a devastating and detrimental effect on children as it can increase violent, aggressive and anti-social behaviour in young people and adults.
In order to best meet the needs of children, we should all approach this issue with a genuine, open mind. That is the duty of the Minister and the Executive. In its consultation paper on physical punishment, the Northern Ireland Office of Law Reform maintains that children require effective discipline and agrees that care and effective discipline will equip them to take their place as mature members of the community.
It is in that context that the issue must be addressed. As Dr Birnie said, the Office of Law Reform is engaged in an open consultation exercise, and the outcome is not predetermined. It is vital that experiences in other countries are taken into account.
With regard to discipline, parents’ discretion is exercised in a framework of legal rules. Any parent who fails to meet a child’s basic needs or mistreats a child can be tried in a criminal court. Although the law already regulates the issue of physical punishment, the established legal standard is problematic. Currently parents are allowed to use chastisement only in a reasonable and moderate manner. Changing the legislation is not enough to change society’s attitudes to parenting and the physical punishment of children.
Increasing knowledge of child development and psychology suggests that effective discipline should aim to stop unacceptable behaviour in the long term and short term by showing children an acceptable alternative way to behave. Effective discipline should help children to take responsibility for their behaviour and to internalise moral values.
In a recent report on physical punishment, the British Medical Association concluded:
"We believe that physical punishment is inefficient, ineffective and harmful in modifying children’s behaviour and that parents should be encouraged and assisted in developing other methods of child discipline."
Court action will not bring Northern Ireland law into compliance with the Government’s full range of human rights obligations, nor with the equality obligations of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. A decision must be made on whether the current law should be abolished or incorporated into a more general statement about families’ rights and responsibilities.
A statement of rights and responsibilities could be constructed to include the responsibilities of both children and parents, similar to that formulated in Austrian law, which was used to declare an end to physical punishment. That statement could be aspirational. Instead of banning physical punishment, the statement could say that parents should aim at not using physical punishment. It could be part of civil law rather than criminal law and be designed to help parents and children know where they stand under the law. A primary duty of the Northern Ireland Government is to promote equality of opportunity between people on the issue of physical punishment. Accordingly, due regard must be given to how to mitigate any equality impact and to how to promote equality of opportunity when dealing with a physical punishment policy.
Save the Children, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) and over 100 other organisations in the UK have campaigned actively for a ban on physical punishment. Both the NSPCC and Save the Children are founding members of the Children Are Unbeatable! programme, a UK-wide campaign to end physical punishment of children. The NSPCC contends that
"the only sensible option in Northern Ireland that is consistent with the civil law on child protection, human rights and equality legislation is to legislate to remove the common-law defence of reasonable chastisement".
If the defence of reasonable chastisement were removed, children would be in the same legal position as adults with regard to the law on assault. Advice and information for all parents, not only those who experience problems, is important. Any help and support for parents, whether they are having a difficult time or not, can only be good. The aim should be to establish a system that will not only provide adequate protection for the most vulnerable in society from those who seek to cause them harm but also to respect parental rights.
A fundamental aspect of all relationships is to keep lines of communication open. We can all relate to parents’ statements such as "I do not know what to do with him/her. He/she will not listen to me." There are very few parents who have not said those words in some form or another. We cannot afford to give up and to stop communicating with young people. They may appear not to be listening, but often they have taken in our words and simply do not want to admit it. Respect and empathy should be shown to children, and corporal punishment is a contradiction of those values.
Funding is essential to support parents and, in addition to creating programmes to deal with problems after they develop, to introduce preventative measures. After all, prevention is better than cure. I therefore put the amendment before the House.

Mr Donovan McClelland: The Business Committee has allocated one and a half hours for the debate. For that reason, and to ensure that the smaller parties have an opportunity to speak, I must limit Members’ speeches to five minutes.

Mr Oliver Gibson: Parents from all over Northern Ireland have spoken to me about the issue. I point out to the Minister that loving, caring parents want their normality to continue. I speak on behalf of those who have enjoyed parenthood, who have love and affection for their children, and who have a sincere wish to bring up their family according to the precepts, norms and principles of their beliefs, philosophical or otherwise.
I warn parents in Northern Ireland that if they allow the legislation to be passed without challenge, they will be assuming that there is a nanny state — in other words, the state knows best; the state takes control, and the state controls parenting and its methodology. I ask parents to write to the Minister to convey their concerns. I want all those who are concerned about the matter to ensure that the Minister is aware that raising a family involves love and affection and the wish for one’s children to grow up to be good citizens. That is the norm.
We are being told to control a tiny minority, the abnormal few who do not respect the rights of parenthood. We have a right to protect the family unit. It has always been the basic unit of society. We must give parents that right and privilege. I remind the Minister and those who support the current legislation that, according to the penultimate sentence in article 2 of protocol No 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the state shall not act contrary to the philosophic beliefs and wishes of parents. Therefore the concept of respect for parents and the family unit is embodied in European law.
I ask that that right be respected in our legislation. It would be wrong of any legislature to assume that, because some parents are irresponsible, it can impose a general prohibition on the norm. I appeal to the Minister to take note of a heartfelt lobby. Perhaps it is not the most vociferous lobby, but it is composed of people who want their human rights and beliefs to be respected. Let us do more than just take note. It is important to support Dr Birnie’s contentions, which he so eloquently outlined together with the various academic arguments on the issue.
I appeal from the point of view of common sense. Ulster parents have always had great respect and support for the family, so to support the normal, good parents, who do their best for their children and who want to continue doing so — without having to look over their shoulders to see what the nanny state dictates — it is important that Members show clearly that we support the rights of the family.

Ms Sue Ramsey: I want to record my disappointment that the Business Committee has allowed each Member just five minutes. There is clearly a great deal of interest in the debate — both in the Chamber and outside it.
I support the motion and the amendment. The motion is only calling for the Minister to take note of the outcome of the consultation process in England and Wales even though it was decided not to change the legislation there. I support Ms Lewsley’s amendment, because I think that she is right: the House should call upon the Minister to take note of the consultation that is taking place throughout the world and not just that which was carried out in England. We should not try to reinvent the wheel. There is plenty to take note of.
The Assembly must be careful not to pre-empt the outcome of the consultation, put a barrier against the outcome, or restrict the work of the Committee for Finance and Personnel or the Minister on that outcome. If there is to be consultation, the Assembly has a duty to allow the people who are being consulted the right to give their views. Local issues require local consultation, and the consultation exercise on this has raised several points from both the pro and anti sides in recent weeks. The Assembly must support parents, but it must also protect children.
‘Children Are Unbeatable!’ is a group that has undertaken much research on this. It has produced a briefing paper, which says that
"At the moment, ‘Children Are Unbeatable!’ believes that children are not equally protected under the law and deserve better support from society".
I do not believe that any Member would object to that. I am concerned that Dr Birnie does not support the amendment. I am unsure of his reasons. The model that has been proposed in Scotland, which Members were briefed on, shows that
"A ‘middle’ position has emerged which includes a ban on all physical punishment of children under the age of three and the use of implements on all other children."
I am, therefore, concerned about the basis on which Dr Birnie is rejecting the amendment.
Many parents feel uneasy at present about what they see on television and in the media, and the Assembly must take that on board. There are concerns that many good parents will be victimised by this. The ‘Children Are Unbeatable!’ briefing paper states that
"If the law were changed, parents should not have to worry about trivial prosecutions. Safeguards should be put into place to ensure that the new law is able to serve its key purpose — to protect children from physical violence rather than to penalise parents".
The people who are working on that consultation exercise are also aware of the issues.
Regarding the substance of the motion, I do not think the Assembly should allow anything to pre-empt the outcome of any consultation exercise or restrict Committees. All Members sit on Committees and are, therefore, aware that they get lobbied — rightly or wrongly — about many matters. The Committees have time to take that on board and to analyse, scrutinise, and ask for advice.
One of the Committees that I sit on sent the Office of Law Reform correspondence back and forth until it was satisfied with a number of Bills. While I hope that Dr Birnie is not trying to pre-empt or stop any consultation exercise, he is unwilling to take on board the model or consultation exercise that has happened. That is why I support Ms Lewsley’s amendment.

Mr Edwin Poots: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I understand that, when the timetable was made, it was not expected that we would be as far ahead of schedule as we currently are. This debate has been scheduled to last only for an hour and a half. With the leave of the House, perhaps we could extend the time for approximately 45 minutes. That would give all those who wish to speak on this important issue an opportunity do so.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Mr Poots, you are well aware that your party sends a Whip to the Business Committee, which sets the time limits for debates. It is then my duty to allocate time fairly to all parties. Your Whips should inform the Business Committee of your dissatisfaction about the limited amount of time being given to such a debate.

Mr Peter Weir: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The extension to the debate is proposed with the leave of the House. Surely, if it is with the leave of the House, that would mean that all Members are happy with the time being extended. Why should any time restriction be imposed? Mr Poots suggested that we seek the leave of the House to extend the debate by 45 minutes to allow a wide range of Members to speak. Surely that should be put to the vote?

Mr Donovan McClelland: The simplest method is for the Whips of each party to make it clear that adequate time should be allocated to debates.

Mr Peter Weir: But surely — [Interruption].

Mr Donovan McClelland: I am on my feet, Mr Weir.
Extending the debate by leave of the House would mean that only one Member would have to say "No" for the proposed extension to fall. It is something that continually arises and must be dealt with, but it is for the Business Committee to deal with.

Mr Robert McCartney: You make the point that the feelings of the House should be referred back to the Business Committee, Mr Deputy Speaker. Most Members will agree that this must be the fifth or sixth time that this feeling of the House — that the time allowed for important debates of public interest is being severely restricted — has been aired. Apparently, there has been no improvement whatever. Mr Poots made the point that the time is currently available, as other business was more expeditiously dealt with than was anticipated. Why not, with the leave of the House, use that time? If one Member objects, then we do not have the leave of the House. If every Member agrees, then we do.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Mr McCartney, you are reflecting what I have said on several occasions in the Chair. Time and time again, the Business Committee has limited the amount of time for a debate. I am then forced into finding time for smaller parties, such as your own, to speak. The difficulty with these points of order is that we are eating into the time for the debate. However, I will put it to the House.

Mr Oliver Gibson: We are ahead of schedule by an hour and a half. This is an important motion, to which an amendment has been tabled. As such, it is reasonable to extend the time in order to have a thorough discussion. Can I persuade you, as Deputy Speaker, to put it to the House?

Mr Donovan McClelland: Members do I have leave of the House to extend the time for this debate to allow all those who wish to contribute to do so?
[Members indicated assent.]

Mr Donovan McClelland: The time will be extended.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: The two Members who spoke after me had their time limited. In fairness, those who are left to speak should have equal time, otherwise one person is getting more time than another.

Mr Donovan McClelland: You raise a valid point, which I will take on board.

Mr David Ford: I will attempt to be brief in the time I may be allowed.
Like other Members, I was a little surprised that this motion was put before the House today. The motion simply calls on the Minister of Finance and Personnel to take note of one aspect of consultation on the matter of children’s discipline that is being conducted in England. I have no doubt that, whatever criticisms I might make of him in other areas, the Minister of Finance and Personnel is aware of the English consultation and is capable of reading the outcome of that report. In the terms in which the motion is phrased, it does not particularly add much to the process that we are currently undergoing.
In that respect at least, Patricia Lewsley’s amendment adds something to it, since it creates a greater degree of balance by referring to the consultations in Scotland and the Republic, rather than merely to those in England and Wales. The amendment, therefore, has considerable merit. In any case, while the motion as originally put down was not particularly meaningful, I would not have wanted to vote against it.
There is no doubt that Scotland and the Republic of Ireland have taken significantly different directions to those taken in England and Wales, though their decisions have not been finalised. Given that the Unionists in this Chamber always tell us of their affinity with the Scots, they seem less willing to listen to the Scots than to the English. No doubt Nationalists will consider that they are being consistent by listening to what happens at this stage south of the border.
The Scots have taken a rather more balanced approach in their considerations than the English have, particularly in the matters of protection for children under three and the use of instruments for administering corporal punishment. If we are not moving towards a total ban, those areas should be considered. Perhaps we should move further in the direction of an outright ban. There is an issue of proportion in how we address the matter and in how we deal with the genuine concerns of loving parents who consider that their past methods might make them criminals.
In Northern Ireland we must refer particularly to the issue of obligations under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. I was a little surprised at the suggestion made by Dr Esmond Birnie as proposer of the motion that adults are not exactly equal to children and therefore do not really matter under section 75. That is not my interpretation of section 75, and I do not accept that there is a case for adults’ doing anything they like with children just because they are not exactly equal. Clearly the rights under article 3 of the European Convention are at issue, and I was surprised when Mr McCartney intervened and referred to children being protected by virtue of their age. That also suggested that children might be damaged by virtue of their age in a way that would not apply to adults.
Dr Birnie talked about defending the rights of families who wished to use moderate physical chastisement. Would anyone in this Chamber use that phrase in relation to any kind of adult? How can it possibly be suggested that such language is appropriate in respect of children if it cannot be used about adults? We must examine appropriate mechanisms to encourage discipline.

Dr Esmond Birnie: Will the Member give way?

Mr David Ford: Briefly, given my time limit.

Dr Esmond Birnie: I thank the Member for giving way, and I will be brief. Does he not accept that there are cases in which it is legitimate to treat children differently from parents?

Mr David Ford: Clearly there are, and I thank Dr Birnie for bringing me to my next point. As part of the balanced Scottish approach, for example, I notice that the Standards in Scotland’s Schools Act 2000 specifically bans corporal punishment but states that
"corporal punishment shall not be taken to be given to a pupil by virtue of anything done for reasons which include averting … an immediate danger of personal injury or ... danger to property."
Clearly there are cases where the proverbial tap on the back of the hand is appropriate, but we must be very careful that we do not appear to give the impression of a carte blanche for serious physical abuse. We have seen plenty of that in this society, and we must be careful not to approve anything which extends to any parent an understanding that such behaviour is acceptable. In this debate there is a danger of talking as if discipline is solely physical punishment. Other methods of discipline might not at times appeal to harassed, tired parents but might be more creative and beneficial to children in the long term.
It is certainly no part of my case to make criminals of loving parents who react in a particular way at a particular time. It is clear that we must look to a balance in those matters. Rather than suggest that we should automatically espouse the English system, we should seek to encourage more appropriate discipline, and thereby more appropriate behaviour by children.

Mr David Ervine: I did not intend to speak on this issue, but there are issues on which my constituents will require clarification. Are we saying that we want to retain the capacity to beat our children? Dr Birnie used either the word "slap" or the word "smack".

Dr Esmond Birnie: I used the word "smack".

Mr David Ervine: What is the definition of a smack? I would like to know the weight of a smack and the velocity of the movement of the arm. What is the difference between a proper smack and an improper smack?
Members’ comments seem to involve an element of "Don’t do as I do, do as I say". In other words, our children should be taught not to use violence in the hope that they will not use violence as adults. Of course, the people who teach them not to use violence use violence themselves. That is a fact.
Parents will do what they want to do in the confines of their home. There may be precious little that we can do about that. However, we, as legislators, should create an ethos and send out the message that the use of violence is unacceptable. It is as simple as that. I would like Members to share that opinion with me. Certain Members have wanted me to share those views with them for a long time. I want Members to share those views with every citizen of our society, including those who cannot speak for themselves and those who, when they do speak for themselves, are not listened to.
We cannot assess the parental skills and talents of Members, but their skills and talents as legislators are pretty evident. We have choices to make. We may not cure the ills of our society in one day, one week or one month, but we can lay down markers and an ethos. We can do that with our children before they get the opportunity to become, perhaps, polluted by the society that we live in.
It seems that there are circumstances in which, if a slap on the wrist were required, Mr Deputy Speaker, you would be more than welcome to tell an adult that he or she is about to get one, rather than have the adult tell the child that. I think that you get my message, Mr Deputy Speaker. It would seem that there are as many unruly adults as there are unruly children. There are those who are the grand democrats, who want to be listened to and fawned over but who will not listen to others. That is known as "Do as I say, not as I do".
Regardless of the history of our society and the ages that we may be, we can all cast our minds back and decide whether physical punishment in the home was a good idea. In relation to our capacity to withstand physical punishment, the red welts will go away. However, I am talking about a person’s state of mind, and the belief that it is OK to smack. Regardless of the scale of the punishment, and how it is dressed up, if it is OK to smack to engender authority, it follows that violence is OK. Even if minimal violence is involved, that is exactly what you are saying. Nothing will redress that — violence is violence is violence is violence. It is as simple as that.

Dr Esmond Birnie: Given the logic of the Member’s argument, perhaps he will tell the House whether he is an absolute pacifist. Does he not accept that there can be cases of the legitimate use of force, such as by the police, the armed forces or the state?

Mr David Ervine: As an adult, I must react to the world that I live in. For a child, I wish that there were someone who would try to make it a better world. They used to put kids up chimneys. Children — [Interruption].

Dr Esmond Birnie: That is not relevant.

Mr David Ervine: It is relevant. Our society is changing — all societies, even if they are badly managed, are changing. Irrespective of how bad our society is because of the way the adults function in it, we should try to make it better for our children. The issues on the agenda should be: do not teach a child how to hit; do not teach a child how to be a bully; and do not show a child that violence of any form, no matter how minimal, is OK.

Prof Monica McWilliams: Mr Ervine’s last point related to changing societies. Lest there be laughter in the House about the fact that certain things were once acceptable, but became unacceptable, I will tell Members about what was once acceptable — and what was said in the courts about what was acceptable — when it came to hitting a person. Hitting then, of course, became known as abuse. It was once acceptable to hit a woman with a stick that was no thicker than a person’s thumb, hence the phrase, "rule of thumb". That was where the ecclesiastical courts started their rulings. They declared that it was perfectly acceptable to hit a woman in the house, providing that it was not too damaging. Women, rightly, started to ask what was considered damaging and what could be construed as emotional or physical abuse. Therefore the law began to change. The victims rose up and said that people would no longer decide by those laws what they could tolerate. A great deal of law was made on the basis of victims responding to what was considered to be acceptable.
The Office of Law Reform’s consultation has not chosen a position. The matter has been left open for consultation and I have no doubt that the Minister will respond. The Office of Law Reform deliberately kept the consultation process open to facilitate a healthy debate.
Patricia Lewsley’s amendment is welcome. Some Members may agree with what the Scottish Parliament has done, but I disagree. When we start to split children up into age groups of 0-3 years, 3 years and above, et cetera, we are getting into difficult territory. Let us in this devolved Assembly form our own views and advise the Minister on the civil law. We are not discussing criminal law, because the Office of Law Reform has responsibility only for civil law. As we debate this matter, let us remember that Northern Ireland is still the only place in Europe that tolerates corporal punishment in independent schools. That is a piece of legislation that we should move to change immediately. In tabling the motion, Esmond Birnie is getting ahead of himself. It might have been best to wait until the Committee had reported to the Assembly on the current consultation process.
I agree with other Members who question what constitutes moderate physical force. Let me tell Esmond Birnie and Oliver Gibson that it is not a matter of a nanny state making decisions. The debate on seat belts was the same. The car was considered to be a private place and it was thought that, once inside a car, people should be allowed to do what they wished for the sake of their own safety. It was up to the individual to decide whether he or she would wear a seat belt. However, the law and the state took a different view, saying that such decisions had consequences for young children and that it was not the right of a parent to decide whether the child would wear a seat belt. The law and the state took that decision.
If people do not wear seat belts and accidents occur, there are consequences for the Health Service and social services. The same situation will arise as regards hitting children. The decision has consequences for psychiatric services, counselling services and social services. The state does make decisions on what happens in private places. Having undertaken much research over the years, I assure the House that private places are the most unsafe. People who are known to their victims carry out most of the violence in our society.

Dr Esmond Birnie: Will the Member give way?

Prof Monica McWilliams: I have approximately 80 seconds remaining. I would give way, had I more time.
I remind the House that this is a positive step forward and that the consultation is useful. To allow people to make their own decisions on the matter is unacceptable, ineffective and costs the state resources.
I support the amendment.

Mr Robert McCartney: Mr Deputy Speaker —

Mr David Ervine: Rhubarb, rhubarb, rhubarb.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order.

Mr Robert McCartney: One of the Members has difficulty with his digestion. We have heard some rumblings already in his address to the Assembly.
I oppose the amendment and support Dr Birnie’s motion. In an erudite, logical and objective speech, he indicated all the relevant parameters of the debate. I can speak with a degree of authority, because I am the father of four children and the grandfather of six, two of whom I take on holiday for three weeks every year. Therefore, I am in close contact not only with my own children but also with my grandchildren. The difficulty lies in distinguishing between child abuse — in whatever form — and correction or reasonable chastisement of a child in a loving and caring environment, when that chastisement or correction is offered not to endanger the child, but to protect him or her.
If a child clambers up on the parapet of a high-rise flat, introduces a piece of paper into an electric fire, or runs out into traffic, it may be necessary to correct that child’s behaviour instantly, not because anyone wants to abuse or to inflict cruelty on that child, but rather to teach, protect and make him or her alert to the dangers of this world. The world is a dangerous place, and a criticism of the nanny state and the excessively caring parent is that by not exposing children to risk and danger, or to an apprehension of danger, or to the correction of danger, in a natural environment, they may place the child in greater danger. That has been the subject of all sorts of psychological investigations.
The law as it presently stands protects children from abuse or cruelty, although much of the abuse and cruelty that goes on is undetected by organisations such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) and social workers, who apparently are engaged to protect them. There is the example of the NSPCC in the case of the Climbie child, and countless other examples of children who have been systematically abused, and who have been systematically supervised by social workers and the NSPCC, which fails them entirely.
In many cases, therefore, the real, secret abuse will continue to escape detection. When it is detected, the abuser will be subject to prosecution under the existing laws that protect children as they protect everyone from cruelty, harm or assault. That blanket imposition on parental control would mean that a mother who is alarmed when her child dashes onto the road and who pulls the child back, giving it an instant smack on the leg, may well be reported to the local authority by a neighbour or a happy voyeur, and may be prosecuted. There is a suggestion that an individual may be given six months’ imprisonment or a period of counselling by some parenting group. That is absolute nonsense. As Esmond Birnie pointed out, the European Court of Human Rights did not —

Prof Monica McWilliams: Will the Member give way?

Mr Robert McCartney: No, I will not give way. You have had your time, and you did not give way. The European Court of Human Rights has clearly pointed out that a specific case, where a boy was beaten on the legs with a garden cane, involved a breach of human rights. However, the court did not make any judgement on the principle of law that operates in the United Kingdom which states that a parent may not abuse or be cruel to his or her child, but may exercise reasonable chastisement for the purpose of protecting that child, because they love and cherish the child and wish to protect him or her from future dangers that might cause pain or suffering. It would be a great wrong to remove that right from a parent.

Mr Peter Weir: I support the motion and oppose the amendment. Henry Ford once said that you could have any colour of car you wanted, as long as it was black. Having read the consultation paper from the Office of Law Reform, it seems that you can do anything about the law as long as it is changed. That is the option that is open to us, as the proposer of the motion noted. The status quo is the one thing that is not acceptable, because a range of five different options has been put forward.
I appreciate that consultation continues. For unusual reasons, there was not a great deal of publicity when the consultation was launched. Its launch was scheduled for 11 September, but other events overtook it. As the mover of the amendment probably said, there have been many lobby groups and forms of consultation. However, many people who have contacted me to express their concern do not feel that they have been empowered and consulted.
The voices of ordinary parents have not been listened to in this debate. The proposals bear symptoms of a wider malaise in society. The liberal elite appears to be introducing a raft of supposed rights and other proposals that are either ludicrous or repugnant to many right-thinking people. That liberal elite seems to sneer at anything that purports to relate to family values or the family unit, and that is the background against which the motion is examined.
There are several reasons why we should argue that the current law is adequate. Any proposed change discriminates, in particular, against parents of a certain moral disposition based on strong Christian values. A large lobby of people believe that they have a right to apply a certain level of discipline to their children as part of their Christian faith. Any changes to the current law would discriminate against them.
It has been indicated that any change would hit the wrong target. For example, unfortunately, at one end of the scale, many parents seem to neglect their children, let them run wild and do not seem to exercise any discipline. I am sure that all of us have received complaints from constituents whose lives have been made a misery by petty vandals and young children who create nuisance. However, any change in the law relating to reasonable chastisement would not affect those parents.
At the other end of the scale, the current law does not permit the physical abuse of children. Parents who physically abuse children, beat them up or attack them, are dealt with by the law. The review does not intend to deal more severely or adequately with those people. It will target parents who take a loving and disciplined attitude to their children. Those people will suffer as a result of any change in the law. Therefore, it is wrongly directed.
As regards state interference, the state has a right and a duty to protect the vulnerable in society against extreme behaviour. However, there is a fundamental difference between that and the enforcement of a particular theory of parenting, which is clearly intended in this instance. It is a facile argument to compare the reasonable chastisement of a child to the use of car seat belts based on the fact that if seat belts are not used, the child might be killed. We are not comparing like with like. If that theory were accepted, where would it reach its logical conclusion? For example, do we impose dietary conditions with which to bring up children? That would create a police state or nanny state, and it would take the role of the state too far. It would diminish people’s respect for the law, because it would create a law that people would find ludicrous, and which might not be enforceable. That would distract people’s attention from the important issues of child protection — the use of resources to protect children who are physically abused.
It is worthy to support the motion, because proposals to change the law as outlined by the Office of Law Reform would result in political correctness gone mad. Let us ensure that parents have a choice as to how they bring up their children, within certain restrictions. I call on everyone to support the motion.

Mr Jim Shannon: I support the motion. It gives parents, myself included, insight into other aspects of life. We all bring our children up in a world full of hope and promise, and we all believe that we act as our parents have done. However, we sometimes have to chastise our children, and a slap across the back of the legs is one way of doing that.
That does not mean that we love our children any less. Chastisement is sometimes needed.
(Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair)
Babies grow up, and we must educate them about right and wrong. That means that we praise the good behaviour, but we also acknowledge the bad behaviour and punish it. I found that out more so with my three boys. I sometimes wondered why I was smacked as a child, and I realised with my children that there was a reason for it. It was not out of anger, but to protect the children. It was out of love and a fear that they would continue to do wrong in the future. That was the guiding light for many of us. Smacking as a reprimand was not always carried out, but the knowledge that my parents would smack as a last resort was enough to enforce upon me that there were social rules that had to be obeyed.
It is disappointing that some Members here today cannot acknowledge the need for some control within a household on smacking children. Some Members seem to believe that there should be no smacking at all. They believe it to be cruel and unnecessary. That is hard to understand when we have representatives of a party here who tell teenagers to appear at Connolly House for reprimand and retribution. It does not look good: they are against smacking but are crying out for much more severe punishment.
Eighty per cent of parents in the United Kingdom said that they would use some form of physical punishment. The Government and the Assembly would be penalising the vast majority who take parenting responsibly. Many children are now fully aware of their rights and use those to their advantage. How many times have we heard of teachers being assaulted in schools and then being prosecuted because they tried to restrain the individual who was trying to cause them injury? We should acknowledge that.
In London, a teacher was kicked in the stomach by a student when she was four months pregnant, and she lost her baby. The student was never prosecuted for the offence, but the teacher was victimised even more by the students on her return to work. She was again assaulted when she became pregnant for a second time. This was in the press at the time. Teachers cannot even ask a student to go to the headmaster’s office — a place where I found myself perhaps more than I should have — because that would be picking on him and violating his human rights.
Minimal and appropriate physical punishment is necessary when bringing up children, and a lack of any form of punishment in society directly corresponds with the rocketing rise in crime and vandalism that we are seeing today. That has already been mentioned by other Members. It is necessary to inform children that bad, and sometimes dangerous, behaviour is never appropriate and will be punished.
One of the arguments against smacking is that it does not work. It does. I will give the example of one of my children. He was told not to do something, but he kept on doing it. He was approaching a fire, and there was a danger that he could be burnt. I told him to draw back, and he did not. I reached out, not in anger, but to protect him, to bring him back, and I smacked him. My son learnt that the fire was dangerous, but I also saved him from serious injury. That is a small thing, but it is a way in which a parent interacts with his children and ensures that they are protected. That is important. It is a small but effective measure.
Physical punishment is appropriate, because children do not know what is best for them. That is a parent’s responsibility. That is what we are always trying to do. To those who say that smacking is wrong, I ask how they can reason with a five-year-old who is hell-bent on scribbling on a wall with felt-tip pens or beating the brains out of his younger brother? There has been no leeway —

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. There is a conversation going on.

Mr Jim Shannon: It is my own Colleagues.
There has been no leeway in this report to support those parents who choose to smack if that is the way in which they want to parent their children. As a parent, I felt that it was, and is, the way to punish my children after reasoning has failed. It is not the Government’s place to tell me how to bring up my children, just as the Government should not choose my wife, my job or how many children I have.

Ms Jane Morrice: Time is up.

Mr Jim Shannon: My democratic right to choose my life and my morals and to guide my children as I see fit should, and must, be safeguarded.

Mr Edwin Poots: This is a very interesting debate, and I welcome the fact that most Members will have the opportunity to participate. The role of the family is crucially important, and we do ill to interfere too closely with it.
Parents have a special relationship with their children. Having children was a special experience for my wife and myself. There was a bonding experience that allowed us to express our love, and allowed us to care for our children, and for our children to express their love to us. The vast majority of parents have the same relationship with their children. It is a loving and caring relationship where parents want the best for their children. They also want to give them the best opportunity and guide them in the right direction.
It is remarkable that 88% of parents have, at one stage or another, used smacking as a means of giving their children direction. The vast majority of those 88% did that in love and care, because they wished to give their children the right guidance.
Some Members may think it somewhat odd that I was such a keen supporter of the children’s ombudsman, and yet I supported smacking in the home. Throughout the process of the report that the Committee of the Centre drew up on a children’s ombudsman, I had said that 95% of the work of the ombudsman would relate to 5% of children. Children are being neglected and abused, not by parents smacking them, but by parents who are ignoring them and allowing them to run wild and do as they please in many circumstances. Those children unwittingly stray into danger.
In my constituency, large numbers of young people meet up regularly. Residents in the vicinity are harassed, objects are thrown at their houses and their own children are abused by those young people. Girls as young as 12 and 13 are mixing with young fellows of 18 and 19 years of age, where drink, drugs and glue are readily available. Are those parents caring for their children? Should those parents be charged with neglect of their children? I believe that parents who neglect their children and allow them to run wild do much more harm to their upbringing than those who will occasionally smack their children to bring them into line.
Some of the articles that I have read about smacking and other forms of punishment stretch to the ridiculous. Giving children stars for good behaviour may work with very young children, but once they get a little older they may look upon that with disdain. Another form of punishment is to send children to their rooms for a time. If smacking amounts to physical punishment, then those other methods equate to mental punishment, and that must be considered objectively.
Since corporal punishment has been excluded from schools, many teachers have said that they have no way of controlling children. Children can do what they like, and teachers can do nothing with them. If that has happened in our schools over the short time since corporal punishment has been removed, what will happen in our homes when children are allowed to do as they please, when they please, where they please, and parents can no longer bring them back into line?
Smacking is one form of punishment that can be used on children. I had to punish my son this morning, and I did that by removing his mobile phone for a week. I could have chosen to smack him, but I believed that removing his phone was another method of punishment. Parents have a range of options, and those who are disciplining their children should not be punished. Those parents who are neglecting their children and allowing them to run wild should be punished.

Dr Sean Farren: Although I welcome the debate, I approached it with a degree of apprehension. I anticipated that, although the motion is directed at the nature of the consultation process, much of the debate would slip into assumptions about the outcome of that consultation process at a phase when the public consultation has been completed and an analysis of all of the submissions has just begun.
Therefore there has been no determination at this point on the outcome. As has become clear from the debate, many other jurisdictions, including all the United Kingdom jurisdictions, have been consulting on the question of how we most effectively bring discipline and guidance into the lives of our children, and what role the law should play. It is not a case of the law’s not having a role to play; it has a role to play in many aspects of family life. Suggestions that it should have no role at all simply ignore the considerable volume of family law that necessarily exists.
In England and Wales the consultation was through the document ‘Protecting Children, Supporting Parents’, published in 2000. That consultation received 900 responses, 80 of which were from Wales. Five hundred and sixty of the responses were from individuals. Analysis of the consultation showed that although nearly all the organisations that responded favoured a change in the law, 70% of those individuals who replied were in favour of maintaining the status quo. In November 2001, the Minister of State at the Department of Health, Jacqui Smith MP, communicated the Government’s decision on the way forward. She said that the Government would not be legislating on the issue.
It is important to note that, whereas the decision was taken not to legislate for the time being, Members will be aware from now on that that did not mean that there was no change in the law in England and Wales. The Court of Appeal, between the consultation and the Government’s decision, had occasion to adapt the law in the case of the Crown versus H. The Court added to the existing common law on reasonable chastisement those tests set out by the European Court of Human Rights in A versus the United Kingdom. Judges and juries in England must consider the nature and context of the defendant’s behaviour, the duration of the behaviour, the physical and mental consequences of the behaviour for the child, and the age and personal characteristics of the child. The Court of Appeal also added a fifth factor, namely, the reasons given by the defendant for administering the punishment.
The Minister finished her statement by saying that the law on reasonable chastisement in England and Wales would be kept under review. It is, therefore, possible that the matter will be raised again in England and Wales at a later stage. Let me assure the Member — because this is the point of his motion — that I shall take careful account of the outcome of the English consultation exercise just as I, and, indeed my predecessor, have taken into our consideration the decisions reached on the law on the physical punishment of children in other jurisdictions.
The Scottish result may be very different from that of England and Wales. A Bill is being introduced by the Scottish Parliament, which, if passed, will prohibit the physical punishment of a child under three years of age. It will forbid the use of any implement, such as a cane or slipper, and will make it illegal to shake a child or hit him or her on the head. The Bill, if passed, will also make it illegal for childminders in childcare centres to use physical punishment.
The Republic of Ireland has also reviewed policy on the physical punishment of children and has decided that it will follow a policy aim of ending parental physical punishment through education. The Law Reform Commission of Ireland has said that it believes that this may, in due course, facilitate a change in the law, although it would be premature to change the law there now.
I should also refer to the experience of other countries. Sweden, Finland, Austria, Italy and Israel are among those countries that have ceased physical punishment, while Canada and almost all US states take the view that physical punishment is an exception to the law of assault. Therefore it was important to conduct a thorough consultation exercise in Northern Ireland so that a decision on the right model for Northern Ireland could be reached through the collection of comprehensive information on people’s views. The consultation document was not launched on 11 December, Mr Weir; it was launched on 11 September.

Mr Peter Weir: I said that it was launched on 11 September, and that was why, unfortunately, it did not get the publicity that it deserved.

Dr Sean Farren: It received considerable publicity. I may have misheard the Member with respect to the date. The press was widely circulated, and the Minister launched the document at a press conference —[Interruption].

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Dr Sean Farren: Doctors, dentists and surgeries were all provided with copies of the consultation document, as were churches, libraries and schools. Evidence that attention has been paid to the document and that the consultation process has been a success in reaching all sections of society is to be found in the 500-plus submissions that have been received. It is vital that the Executive hear the range of views so that we can find an appropriate way forward.
The process of analysing the responses has begun, and it will be a substantial task. I am making a commitment to publish the analysis. My Colleagues and I enter the process of examining options for the way forward with genuinely open minds. We shall have to do something, because the Westminster Government have undertaken to the European Court of Human Rights that the failure of the law to provide adequate protection to those in the position of A will be addressed and the law amended. However, all the options set out in the consultation paper remain: limiting the scope of the defence of reasonable chastisement; removing the defence of reasonable chastisement, including a statement of rights and responsibilities in the legal definition of parental responsibility; and encouraging the development of parenting programmes. Those options remain, and there may be more.
I welcome the contributions to the consultation exercise from all shades of opinion, including those contributions from Assembly Members. They are difficult issues that invoke strong feelings in many people, and the consultation exercise was the means by which those feelings could be communicated to those charged with deciding the way forward. The responses must be tailored to the circumstances of people in Northern Ireland.
I shall turn to some of the individual matters raised by Members. The nature of the Strasbourg jurisprudence, which was questioned in some contributions, means that although the court can look only at the case before it, its decisions will have wider ramifications. In A versus UK, the United Kingdom accepted that the law did not provide adequate protection to the applicant against maltreatment or punishment, contrary to article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Therefore it should be amended.
In moving the motion, Dr Birnie suggested that the research on which the consultation paper is based is flawed. Experienced lawyers and academics wrote the paper, and all efforts were made to check the facts contained in the paper. Dr Baumrind and Dr Larzelere are two leading sources that have been mentioned as not having been considered adequately. Dr Baumrind was considered during the preparation of the paper. Dr Larzelere’s work was written when the research for the paper was completed, but it has kindly been provided to officials who will give it proper consideration.

Dr Esmond Birnie: My understanding is that Dr Larzelere’s research was published in 1996, well before the consultation in 2001.

Dr Sean Farren: I understand that the paper and research, which the Member refers to, was made available only after the consultation document was prepared. Nonetheless, it has been made available to officials, and the evidence in it will be considered in the course of the analysis of submissions to the consultation.
Reference has also been made to an alleged misuse, or misapplication, of section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Section 75 provides for equality of opportunity in respect of age. Every consultation in Northern Ireland must refer to equality obligations, and equality impact assessments must be carried out in relation to policy decisions. Currently, the law creates differences between how children and adults are treated in the law as regards assault and battery. There is no defence of reasonable chastisement for an adult who hits another adult. Therefore it is our job to see whether that distinction, as regards children, is justifiable. That is one of the purposes of the consultation; it does not predetermine the outcome.
I reassure the Member that the outcome of the consultation carried out in England and Wales has been, and will continue to be, noted by my Department and by the Executive. Equally, we will take into account the experience in other jurisdictions. Work will be carried out to analyse the responses to the consultation, and any policy that is developed will properly take into account the views expressed by those who responded to the questions posed by the consultation paper.
As the debate has demonstrated, this is no easy topic. We have to keep in mind the three-year-old who is given a quick smack for going too close to the fire and the 12-year-old who is hit with a broom handle or worse, as evidenced by the use of baseball bats and cricket bats in our society. We must keep in mind chastisement of that kind, which is being given to teenagers for answering back or perhaps for not answering at all.
This is not a referendum for or against smacking; it is much more complex than that. We have to focus on the functions of the law in defining standards. It is about protecting vulnerable people, including children who can be exposed to considerable mental and physical risk not just outside the home but also within it, and helping to shape people’s ideas about what is acceptable and unacceptable. It is not about classifying people into good and bad parents. Some good parents say that they have frightened themselves by smacking too hard. It is about asking some difficult questions and recognising that we are dealing with laws that are 150 years old.
It is because of the value of informed debate on these important issues that I am happy to support the amendment in the name of Patricia Lewsley, as it emphasises the many sources on which we want to draw. Indeed, we have been doing just that in deciding the way forward. Parents, interested groups and all of us want what is best for our children and to bring them up to be responsible and active members of the community. I thank the Member for raising these vital matters in the debate, and I thank the Members who have contributed to it.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: I thank those who have contributed to the debate and especially those who supported my amendment.
The debate is not about good parents or bad parents; nor is it about penalising any parent. It is about putting guidelines, legislation and, in particular, support mechanisms in place to help parents. I am surprised by Mr Weir’s complaint about the lack of consultation with parents and his support for a motion that narrows the issue by asking the Minister to take into consideration only the outcome of the consultation in England and Wales to the exclusion of other jurisdictions. The ultimate aim of the consultation should be the protection of our children.

Dr Esmond Birnie: I thank all those who took part, particularly the Minister.
The underlying argument in proposing the motion is simple and modest. It is that the Minister should note the decision made by the Administration in London, which was taken during the process of public consultation here, that no further change in the law is necessary. England and Wales face the same European Court of Human Rights obligations as we do, and the European Convention on Human Rights has already recognised that the European Court of Human Rights does not imply that all signatory countries must have an outright ban on smacking.
I sense that many opponents of the motion fear that if Northern Ireland, or any other part of the UK, retains the so-called "reasonable chastisement" defence, it will make them the odd man out internationally. Despite the implication contained in the consultation document, there is, in practice, great uncertainty as to whether major European countries such as Austria and Italy have truly banned smacking in the home.
The opponents of the motion should also be aware of the example of the state of Arkansas in the USA. You may say —

Ms Sue Ramsey: Will the Member give way?

Dr Esmond Birnie: I will not give way as I have only a short time. The former President of the USA, Bill Clinton, who was a welcome visitor here, was Governor of Arkansas, where the statutes allow for reasonable and moderate parental discipline.

Prof Monica McWilliams: They also allow for capital punishment.

Dr Esmond Birnie: I do not think that we want to debate that issue today.
I will be brief. Ms Lewsley referred to the need to encourage effective parenthood, and we all agree with that. I pay tribute to those portions of the consultation document that point the way to greater forms of support for parents. I have doubts about Ms Lewsley’s proposal for changes in the civil law.
I agree with Mr Gibson’s points. Many of us have received letters from parents who are concerned about proposed changes in the law, and we should avoid punishing the innocent majority of parents along with a small minority. We should avoid a nanny state.
Ms Ramsey said that we should look at the example of other countries, and I agree with that. However, it is important to examine those examples carefully to check whether they actually have banned smacking.
As to the point that changes in the law would not lead to trivial prosecutions, we should bear in mind that a court case has been taken in Scotland because of an incident in October last year when a French tourist smacked his eight-year-old son on the streets of Edinburgh.
Mr Ford said that we should not give carte blanche for serious abuse. We all agree with that. There is an existing law on assault.
Mr Ervine challenged proponents of the motion to define smacking.
An acceptable definition could be established by the five criteria that are now set out in the development of the English common law, established by the R versus H case in the spring of last year, to which the Minister referred.
Prof McWilliams said that the consultation was an open process. However, as Mr Weir said, the option of keeping the law as it is was not listed among the options for public consultation. As to the impact of physical correction on children, I refer Prof McWilliams to the research that I mentioned in my opening speech. I agree with Mr McCartney that, in all probability, a change in the law would not prevent the sort of insidious, secret abuse that is so damaging and wrong.
I agree with Mr Weir that we must listen to the concerns of ordinary parents. I also agree with Mr Shannon’s and Mr Poots’s remarks about the importance of having a loving family without excessive state intervention.
I note that the Minister said it is too early to analyse the results of the consultation. We eagerly await the analysis of the more than 500 submissions that the Office of Law Reform received. As I said, he listed the five criteria that were established after the United Kingdom versus A and the R versus H cases in order to inform courts about the definition of reasonable chastisement in future. That is where our law should rest.
Finally, I urge the Minister of Finance and Personnel to note that the ‘Protecting Children, Supporting Parents’ consultation document said that
"it would be quite unacceptable to outlaw all physical punishment of a child by a parent".
Prime Minister Tony Blair was quoted in ‘The Guardian’ of 8 November 2001 conceding that he had smacked his children when they were
"really naughty or did something nasty to another child."
That is one example that we should bear in mind.
Question put,
The Assembly divided: Ayes 30; Noes 34
Ayes
Alex Attwood, Eileen Bell, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, John Dallat, Mark Durkan, David Ervine, Sean Farren, John Fee, David Ford, Tommy Gallagher, Michelle Gildernew, Carmel Hanna, Joe Hendron, Billy Hutchinson, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Alex Maskey, Kieran McCarthy, Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Martin McGuinness, Gerry McHugh, Monica McWilliams, Conor Murphy, Danny O’Connor, Dara O’Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, Sue Ramsey, John Tierney.
Noes
Fraser Agnew, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Esmond Birnie, Wilson Clyde, Robert Coulter, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Nigel Dodds, Sam Foster, John Gorman, Tom Hamilton, William Hay, David Hilditch, Derek Hussey, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, Robert McCartney, William McCrea, Alan McFarland, Maurice Morrow, Ian Paisley Jnr, Edwin Poots, Iris Robinson, Ken Robinson, Mark Robinson, Jim Shannon, David Trimble, Denis Watson, Peter Weir, Jim Wells, Jim Wilson, Sammy Wilson.
Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly calls on the Minister of Finance and Personnel to take note of the outcome of the consultation in England and Wales by the Department of Health on the law on the physical correction of children in their homes ‘Protecting Children, Supporting Parents’ (2000) which decided not to change the legislation.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Interruption].

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. Members should resume their seats.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: My point of order relates to the extension of the debate that has just ended by the Deputy Speaker who was in the Chair before you. There is no provision for such an extension, either in Standing Orders, which I checked, or in the legislation. Can the Speaker make a ruling on this matter and bring it before the House on Monday?

Ms Jane Morrice: I will certainly refer that point of order to the Speaker for him to look at and report back.
Motion made:
That the Assembly do now adjourn. — [Madam Deputy Speaker.]

Job Losses in East Antrim

Mr Roy Beggs: I thank the Business Committee for allowing me to bring this matter to the Floor of the Assembly. It is important to highlight the recent decline in employment in east Antrim to other Assembly Members and to the various Government Departments. [Interruption].

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. Will Members please take their seats.

Mr Roy Beggs: There is a clear need for Government Departments to assess how the job prospects and lifelong learning opportunities of the people of east Antrim can be improved.
Many people’s perceptions of east Antrim are inaccurate and have more in common with the situation in the 1960s, rather than with the reality of the twenty- first century. GEC, ICI and Courtaulds have gone. The voids left by those multinational companies have been filled by FG Wilson (Engineering) Ltd and by small business complexes which have developed on the former sites of ICI at Kilroot and of Courtaulds at Carrickfergus. During the past decade, in common with the rest of Northern Ireland, unemployment declined with the emergence of new industry and service sector jobs in east Antrim. In 1996, unemployment in Larne was at 10%, slightly above the Northern Ireland average of 9·5%.
In recent years the economic outlook for east Antrim has been primarily related to the fortunes of Nortel Networks. In 1999-2000 over £125 million was earmarked for investment in Nortel’s Monkstown plant. In 2000 Nortel won the Northern Ireland Exporter of the Year award, and its workforce almost doubled. A range of suppliers flourished in east Antrim at that time — Insilco, Solectron and C-Mac.
New jobs were created, but with the crash of the global telecommunications market those were either lost or were at risk. Since January 2001 there have been 1,000 redundancies at Nortel, and 200 staff have been given early retirement. There have been 350 redundancies at Solectron, 200 at C-Mac and 120 at Insilco. Other job losses in the electronics industry were related to the decline in the world economy. Two hundred jobs were lost at Daewoo Electronics in Carrickfergus, and 65 at AVX in Larne. With the announcement of other redundancies, the total of jobs lost in the last year affected approximately 2,000 people.
Questioned by David Hilditch, an Assembly Colleague from East Antrim, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment reported that 44% of all redundancies in Northern Ireland between April and November 2001 were in east Antrim. That statistic is startling. The scale of job losses is the same as that caused by the closure of the man-made fibres industry in the early 1980s. The trade union Amicus-AEEU indicated that a 2:5 ratio multiplier effect comes into being when manufacturing jobs are lost, because the additional loss of service sector jobs increases the total.
The unemployment statistics for December 2001 show that unemployment in the Carrickfergus Borough Council area is at 6·6%. That is the fifth highest of any council area in Northern Ireland. Larne borough, at 5·9%, is the sixth highest, with the Northern Ireland average at 4·6%. That is the position at the moment, and recently announced redundancies have yet to appear in official unemployment statistics.
Eleven district councils in Northern Ireland are earmarked for special TSN support from LEDU and IDB. I want to know why those eleven councils qualify, while the councils with the fifth- and sixth-highest unemployment rates — Larne and Carrickfergus — do not. I welcome the fact that the criteria for designating TSN are under review, but I would like the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, and the Executive, to bear in mind that dramatic changes have occurred in east Antrim, even since the recent completion of the Noble indices.
The IDB’s most recent report shows low numbers of overseas visits to east Antrim. In 2000-01, there were no visits to Larne, and only three to Carrickfergus. How can we address the decline? How do we make progress? How can we contribute to improving the lot of the people of east Antrim?
There is a need to promote sustainable employment, and to switch the focus to indigenous business start-ups and company development, which is the role of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and Invest Northern Ireland.
Education also plays a role in improving people’s opportunities. I place a high level of importance on the need for education, to enable an individual to improve his or her skills. The availability of training and further education is key to improving the employment potential of individuals, the economic performances of employers and the economy as a whole: hence the wording of the motion.
The East Antrim Institute of Further and Higher Education, for which I have the highest regard, is not located in east Antrim; it is located in north Belfast. East Antrim is one of the few constituencies in Northern Ireland that does not have a permanent, central further education college. As a member of the Committee for Employment and Learning, I have repeatedly raised the issue of further education provision in my constituency, as the former Minister will testify.
There is underprovision. Larne Technical College closed in 1999. It has since been demolished, and the site is derelict. Larne’s current further education provision is situated in a temporary, out-of-town location. There is a real need to re-establish further education facilities in Larne town centre to give a focal point to continuing lifelong learning. I hope that the Minister will soon be in a position to announce good news on that front. I am pleased that she has agreed to meet me next week to discuss this and other related issues. The meeting was arranged prior to the selection of this motion for debate.
There are several areas in which there have been educational gaps in east Antrim, particularly under Peace I funding. Proteus (NI) Ltd spent a total budget, largely in the field of educational support, of £22·25 million, none of which was spent in the Carrickfergus Borough Council area. The educational guidance service for adults (EGSA), with a budget of about £4·3 million, spent only £26,000 in the East Antrim constituency, on one pilot project.
I welcome the fact that Proteus (NI) Ltd and EGSA recently attended a community-funding event in east Antrim. Applications will rise as a result of that. However, as east Antrim has a relatively weak community infrastructure, there may be a need for proactive departmental support in that area.
The Oakfield Community Centre in Carrickfergus is a potential outreach area for the East Antrim Institute of Further and Higher Education. It has been successful to date, but demand is dropping because its equipment is obsolete. I seek proactive support from the Department for Employment and Learning to improve the educational facilities in that deprived area of my constituency.
Many villages, never mind towns, in Northern Ireland were provided with community educational IT suites through Peace I. However, to the best of my knowledge, the town of Carrickfergus, which does not have a further education college, was not. The officials responsible for the allocation of Peace II money recently advised me that it is unlikely that funding will be available within their gift. Again, will the Minister say whether there are departmental or other funds to provide Carrickfergus with a community education facility so that lifelong learning programmes can be provided?
I expected learndirect, the Internet-based learning facility, to play a key role in filling the further-education voids in east Antrim. Until recently, Larne and Carrickfergus were two of only four district council areas in Northern Ireland that did not have a learndirect centre to provide community access. I welcome the recent announcement of a learndirect centre in Carrickfergus, which is to be operated by Oriel Training. However, I regret the fact that no learndirect application of the required quality has yet been approved for Larne. I suggest to the Minister that a new further education campus in Larne would be an ideal location for a learndirect centre. The community that I represent is becoming frustrated by the delays and the lack of equality in the provision of lifelong learning facilities.
I support the development of small business units. There has been a successful development at the Larne Enterprise Development Company (LEDCOM) and at Carrickfergus Enterprise Agency Ltd (CEAL), in Carrickfergus, where business start-ups have been encouraged — all the units there are filled. In my constituency there is an opportunity to further develop indigenous employment that would continue to exist despite changes in the world economy. I ask the Department for Employment and Learning and other Departments to support such developments.
The people of east Antrim need equal education opportunities as regards the provision of further education and training. A level playing field is required to provide incentives for businesses across the board in Northern Ireland. The fortunes of the global economy are not in the hands of the Assembly, but let us ensure that equal opportunities for training, education and employment are provided for everyone in Northern Ireland, including east Antrim.

Ms Jane Morrice: Many Members wish to speak in this debate. Therefore I ask Members to limit the length of their contributions to around six minutes.

Mr Danny O'Connor: I thank my fellow Assembly Member for East Antrim, Mr Beggs, for bringing this important issue to the House. There has long been a perception that east Antrim is prosperous because of companies such as GEC, Standard, Courtaulds, ICI plc and Carreras Rothmans (NI) Ltd. Those companies have gone. They were replaced by companies such as Daewoo, which is more or less gone; Insilco Technologies, which has only two remaining employees; and C-MAC, Solectron, and AVX, which have also gone. There is a real danger that the entire constituency of East Antrim is placing all its eggs in two baskets: FG Wilsons and Nortel Networks Ltd. That is dangerous, as we have seen already this year. For example, my friend is today working the last day of his notice period at a subsidiary of Nortel. He is redundant from today.
East Antrim is now one of the unemployment black spots of Northern Ireland. When my Colleagues, Mr Beggs and Mr Roger Hutchinson, and I met the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment a few weeks ago, we discovered how bad the situation is. Long-term unemployment is increasing, and youth unemployment is actively rising. There may be a correlation between the rise in youth unemployment and the closure of the East Antrim Institute of Further and Higher Education in Larne. When that facility closed, all sorts of promises were made. We were told that a smaller, purpose-built, state-of-the-art building with IT suites would be built to meet the needs of modern education.
Those promises have not been delivered on, because the property has not yet been sold. I hope that progress will be made on the matter. I thank the Minister for her presence here today, and I know that she is sympathetic to our concerns and is trying to ensure that all people in Northern Ireland have equal access to training.
Further education in Larne was asset-stripped by the East Antrim Institute of Further and Higher Education. More and more courses were removed from the institute in Larne to safeguard the institute in Newtownabbey until full-time further and higher education provision could no longer be justified in Larne. However, hundreds of people made use of part-time provision, and that service is no longer available.
I want to touch on some other issues that have affected my constituency. The Moyle interconnector is now on stream, and there is a combined gas turbine plant at Ballylumford, where there will be a huge number of job losses once that is fully operational. There have been job losses at Kilroot power station in the past few years. East Antrim seems to have fallen behind; as prosperity has increased elsewhere in Northern Ireland, it seems to have decreased in east Antrim.
There is also hidden unemployment. Mr Beggs referred to figures that we received from the Minister. However, because many of the jobs that were lost in companies such as AVX and Insilco Technologies provided second incomes for families, and because those losses occurred in the run-up to Christmas, perhaps they have not yet appeared in the raw statistics. I fear that the statistics are much worse than we are being led to believe.
I would like the Minister for Employment and Learning and the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to appoint officials to examine seriously the situation in east Antrim. There is no longer a hospital in the constituency; a minor injuries unit was promised, but there has been no word of it. The people of east Antrim have been stripped of everything that they had, and they cannot take much more. Not enough is being done to meet their needs.
There is talk about building the capacity of our young people and helping them be the best that they can be in order to compete in the modern world. I agree, but how can that be done when people in Carnlough have to travel almost 40 miles to reach the East Antrim Institute?
The tourism industry has been faltering, and much more should be done to improve it. The Industrial Research and Technology Unit should become more involved in trying to safeguard and add value to the assembly jobs at FG Wilson.

Mr David Hilditch: I support what the previous Members have said, and I once again voice my concern at the job losses and the lack of training opportunities in the constituency of East Antrim.
After the last round of job losses at Nortel in May 2001, I wrote to the company and subsequently met their representatives on 12 June 2001. The agenda of the meeting was the long-term future of Nortel and the group of satellite companies that was set up to supply directly to Nortel. The company representative assured me that job losses had been unavoidable, but that the company was now leaner and fitter and that the market had bottomed out. Nortel was simply waiting for the upturn that research predicted would happen. It could not be stated at that stage when that upturn would occur, but Nortel was confident that no more job losses would occur at the company or at its suppliers, including Solectron. Disappointingly, as an elected representative, that was the last I ever heard from Nortel.
I then had a series of meetings with the satellite companies, including Solectron. At this stage I was concerned that Solectron had a contract with Nortel as the sole customer, and that people who had applied for jobs at Nortel ended up employed at Solectron. I have continued to be concerned at the state of this industry, in which Nortel appears to be the central figure. Indeed, I have submitted written questions on this subject, to which Mr Beggs referred earlier. The answer was that 1,218 people were unemployed up to 9 November, but I believe this figure to be less than half of the jobs that have really been lost. The figure does not take into account those on temporary or fixed-term contracts, and those who lost their employment before finishing their training, therefore not attracting redundancy.
I must add that many of these employees were in secure employment elsewhere, and were encouraged to leave and move to Nortel and Solectron on the promise of secure employment, increased earnings, overtime, and better working conditions. This is why the workforce is so embittered about not only the loss of its employment, but the way in which the bad news has been handled. For example, documentation was left accidentally in photocopiers: output increased at the Solectron factory; employees were sent to other factories in Scotland and the Republic of Ireland to help them achieve the quality that the Carrickfergus factory achieved every day. Currently the contract Solectron has with Nortel is worth some £45 million, and I believe that this will be relocated to the aforementioned factories. Therefore this loss will be not only to Carrickfergus and east Antrim, but to Northern Ireland as a whole.
With regard to redundancy packages for the workforce, the reality is that because Solectron is such a new company in the Province, the redundancy package is of little use to most of the employees. I urge the Minister to ensure that every effort is made in training and employment to ensure that the very capable workforce is offered every opportunity for training and upgrading of its skills and technical know-how, so that its prospects for new employment are fully maximised, and that these workers are simply not put out to graze as surplus to requirement.
Another area for concern in my constituency is the gas turbine installation in the Premier Power plant at Ballylumford. The contract has been awarded to an Italian company, which in turn has recruited a workforce of foreign nationals. I am informed that the skills required are readily available in our locality. I am concerned that the workforce may not be receiving the minimum wage, despite its entitlement as members of the European Union. I have brought this to the attention of the Assembly through question AQW 965/01. The answer from the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment was as follows:
"My Department does not hold this information which relates to issues outside its remit and to a private company. Nationals of countries outside the European Union and the European Economic Area require an employment permit to work in Northern Ireland. Responsibility for the issue of employment permits rests with my colleague the Minister for Employment and Learning. The National Minimum Wage is a reserved matter, on which the Department of Trade and Industry leads for the United Kingdom as a whole."
Further questions have been tabled, and are due for answer this week by the Minister for Employment and Learning — we look forward to those. I am disappointed with that answer, and empathise with the local people who have experienced unemployment in the east Antrim area, and who see foreign nationals taking much- needed jobs and shipping home the wages.
In conclusion, I am deeply concerned at the state of the telecommunications industry in east Antrim, on which the area is heavily dependent. I can draw parallels with the textile industry, whose demise devastated the area during the 1970s. We can ill afford to lose the telecommunications industry, but similarly I am concerned at the over-dependence on this industry. East Antrim also depends on small businesses, as some 58·4% of employment in Carrickfergus and Larne is accounted for by small businesses, many of which are experiencing difficulties. East Antrim currently ranks fifth among the 18 parliamentary constituencies in unemployment figures, and urgent measures need to be put in place to reverse that trend. I support the call to improve job prospects and lifelong learning opportunities.

Mr David Ford: I rise to look over the constituency boundary from South Antrim to East Antrim, as I want to add a few brief comments to the debate on the Nortel aspect, particularly on behalf of my Colleague, Mr Neeson. I welcome the fact that this debate is taking place, and I congratulate Mr Beggs for having introduced the topic.
There is a significant problem in east Antrim. Companies such as Nortel did not just employ constituents of East Antrim Members; they also employed many people from south Antrim and north Belfast. As David Hilditch has rightly highlighted, the shrinking of 1,500 jobs in IT and communications in the last year or so was in parallel to what happened in the late 1970s and early 1980s to the textile jobs, which also disappeared from south and east Antrim. A major initiative is needed to restore confidence in the area and deal with the after-effects of the job losses at Solectron in recent weeks.
There has also been some good news. The recent announcement by the planners to give outline planning permission to the retail and business park at the Courtaulds factory site in Carrick is a positive development on a brownfield site and is clearly welcome. However, we must ensure that that is followed up fully. I trust that the Minister for Employment and Learning will ask her Colleague, Reg Empey, to ensure that the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment lends as much support as possible to that project, so that there are more jobs for the people of Carrickfergus.
Similarly, there are some positive signs of recovery of IT jobs in north America. We hope that the Minister can give us some assurance that everything possible will be done to stop job losses in Northern Ireland and to ensure that jobs are underpinned until they become fully viable and firms can expand again after the anticipated upswing in the economy when it comes across the Atlantic from north America.
Invest Northern Ireland will have a major role in developing and promoting investment. The over- dependency on IT and communications jobs has been highlighted, and there is a need to build up the tourist potential, but basically the economic base in the constituency and in the wider County Antrim area must be broadened. That clearly comes back to the Minister for Employment and Learning, because one fundamental matter must be addressed — skills development and the promotion of lifelong learning opportunities.
The Government must support private business, because private business is the engine that produces economic growth in an area. However, competition does not always achieve what we want, and the changes made to further education several years ago seem to have created difficulties. The amalgamation of separate colleges seems to have led indirectly to problems in several areas, most obviously in the closure of the Larne campus of the East Antrim Institute.
It must be possible to redress that. Danny O’Connor has rightly highlighted that it has not been dealt with as speedily as it should have been. Whatever problems there may be in running a multi-campus institution, it cannot be right that the people of Larne have no further education provision closer than Ballymena, Antrim or Whiteabbey. Something must be done to put further education provision back in Larne, and we must also look for some form of outreach in Carrickfergus instead of depending entirely on the facility in Whiteabbey. Those matters must be addressed urgently.
Economic confidence in east Antrim, which has had high employment levels and has lost them, is lower than in some parts of Northern Ireland that have always expected to have higher levels of unemployment. Larne is clearly an area of major concern, although Carrickfergus is not far behind, and when I say Larne, I mean the entire borough from Ballycarry to Carnlough.
Sean Neeson wrote recently to several Ministers to seek a co-ordinated interdepartmental approach to the situation and to ask that a task force be set up to ensure that the problems do not fall through the gaps between different departmental responsibilities. Those problems simply cannot be dealt with in isolation, and I ask the Minister for Employment and Learning to tell us what she can do, in conjunction with her Colleagues, to ensure that a multi-agency task force, involving not only Government Departments but also local agencies in Larne and its wider community, is put together to ensure that we tackle the problem in a way that shows that this institution is supposed to symbolise joined-up Government.

Mr Ken Robinson: I must point out that east Antrim contains three boroughs — Larne, Carrickfergus and Newtownabbey. They are both independent and interdependent. What affects one part affects them all.
That is true in the current economic climate, especially in the aftermath of September 11.
A catalogue of job losses has removed thousands of positions from our economy over the last year: Nortel Networks and Bombardier Shorts in Newtownabbey; Fort James UK Ltd; AVX and Insilico Technologies (UK) Ltd in Larne; and most recently Solectron and C-MAC Network Systems Inc in Carrickfergus. Countless other small firms have either closed their doors or savagely reduced the numbers of their workers.
Unfortunately, east Antrim has been down this road before. In the 1960s and 1970s, almost one quarter of the man-made fibre industry of the United Kingdom was located in that area. Names such as Courtaulds, ICI and the tobacco firm Carreras appeared on the wage packets of many homes in the three boroughs. A change in global economic terms led to a disastrous period of closure for those firms. The blow to the economy in local terms was manifest in the virtual stagnation of commercial life in those towns. Shops that depended on the spending power of these workers closed, thus adding hundreds more to the unemployment registers.
With the terrorist campaign in full flow, the intervening years brought a certain unexpected respite to the economic life of the area. Many residents found part-time or full-time posts in the security forces and the Prison Service, with the Carreras site eventually housing the RUC stores. Today, with the present, imperfect peace process, there has been a substantial loss of these security-related jobs. That is a hidden factor in the job problem in east Antrim.
Since the region had a particularly high concentration and percentage of these sources of employment, this has in many ways created a double whammy for my constituents in East Antrim. Are our towns once again to suffer the commercial downturn that afflicted them in the 1970s? There is perhaps one vital difference today. In the 1970s, the direct rule regime was not particularly sympathetic, and was disinclined to intervene in east Antrim for political, as much as economic, reasons. Today we have once again a local Administration that can reflect the concerns of our constituents. Just as it was a local Administration that first attracted the man-made fibre and tobacco industry into east Antrim, the current, restored Administration is in a position to actively pursue inward investment. It is also in a position to work with large companies to minimise the current unemployment downturn and ensure that these companies and their workforce are well positioned to benefit from the inevitable upturn.
In this era of joined-up government, I appeal to the Ministers — particularly the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment — to set up a task force, comprising the six MLAs, representatives from the borough councils and business/commercial life and the Minister’s officials to see how existing links, for instance via twin towns and sister cities, might be profitably exploited. Perhaps a trade mission focused solely on the needs of east Antrim could be put in motion. I am sure that the local enterprise development agencies in each of the boroughs can contribute their expertise in the creation of small and medium enterprises to ensure that the economy does not put all its eggs in one basket again.
When the current survey into to the location of Civil Service jobs is complete, the Minister of Finance and Personnel will have an opportunity to ensure that a significant number of those jobs are located in Larne, Carrickfergus and Newtownabbey. Those towns currently have 0·6%, 0·5% and 0·3% of the total Civil Service jobs in Northern Ireland, which is an absolute scandal. Those stable jobs would help to sustain that critical mass of the economically active residents which these towns require during this period of industrial readjustment.
The Minister of the Environment also has a role to play by ensuring that the outstanding natural beauty and resources are enhanced and not destroyed by endless, thoughtless and, in many cases, tasteless development, so that the tourist and recreational potential of the area can be fully exploited.
The Minister for Employment and Learning also has a vital role. One strong nucleus in the area that can attract employees and employers is the strong higher and further education base provided by the East Antrim Institute of Further and Higher Education, currently based in Newtownabbey. That base could be considerably strengthened if the Larne campus were speedily developed to its full potential to provide a focal point for the upgrading of the skills of that local workforce, thus enhancing their prospects and the prospects of the town in attracting inward investment.
The Jordanstown campus provides a strong research and development base, which has been useful in the task of spinning out new enterprises, particularly in the high-tech and biomedical field. It is currently the centre for training for the hospitality and tourist industry. I hope that the University of Ulster will be encouraged to develop that expertise at the Jordanstown site given its high standing and its proximity to many tourist attractions and hotels in the area.
The Minister for Regional Development has a crucial role to play by ensuring that the trans-European network route linking Larne to the rest of the system is not reduced beyond Whitehead, and that the A2 beyond Greenisland towards Carrickfergus is urgently upgraded, so that businesses in Carrickfergus can more readily access and exit their industrial units.

Ms Jane Morrice: Will the Member bring his remarks to a close?

Mr Ken Robinson: The Minister for Social Development needs to address the serious problems facing parts of the towns of Larne, Carrickfergus and Newtownabbey, where once thriving local shopping areas are being painted over to improve their appearance. It is a cosmetic exercise that is merely masking the fact that the commercial heart is being squeezed out of those towns.

Ms Jane Morrice: Will the Member bring his remarks to a close?

Mr Ken Robinson: I am drawing my remarks to a close.
We are addressing an urgent problem today with job losses running into thousands. Commercial life is in need of a confidence boost, and if the House supports the people of east Antrim, east Antrim will eventually support the economy of Northern Ireland.

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Mr Ken Robinson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Several times in the House, when we have come to very important points, speeches have had to be squeezed into six minutes. It is totally ridiculous, especially given the seriousness of this situation. It has happened in debates on education and in others. I draw it to your attention.

Ms Jane Morrice: The Member knows that according to Standing Orders the Adjournment debate is only permitted to last one hour. Many Members are interested in participating in the debate and in order to give the Minister time to respond it is important that we restrict the timing.

Mr Roger Hutchinson: I, along with my Colleagues, support Mr Beggs’s motion, although I wonder what benefit it will be as we have already met many of the people concerned in the Assembly and the Executive. We have written to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. We also met Sir Reg Empey and put exactly the same points to him that we are putting today. I wonder how seriously those in authority view the situation in east Antrim.
I remember the days when a boy left school in Larne, and it was just a formality to go into the BTH, as it then was, and take on an apprenticeship, or go down to the Pie, or the NSTC as it became. He could go to Ballylumford, or into the Bleach Green, the Morne, the paper mill, or down to Larne Harbour. Sadly, many of those outstanding businesses that have served Larne well over the years are no longer there.
I have to agree with what my Colleagues, Mr Beggs and Mr O’Connor, have said about east Antrim. People look at the area through rose-tinted glasses. They seem to think that east Antrim is made up of leafy lanes in Jordanstown, and that there is nothing beyond that. East Antrim consists not just of Jordanstown, but also of Greenisland, Carrickfergus, Larne, Carnlough and Glenarm. Many of those areas are in great deprivation.
East Antrim has suffered sectarian attacks over the past few months, especially in the Larne area. The whole of east Antrim has received very poor publicity in the media and throughout the world. When thinking of inward investment, I have to bear in mind the fact that people can only come to an area when they are encouraged to come.
I make no apology for asking the following questions. When it comes to focusing attention on east Antrim, where has the Industrial Development Board (IDB) been? Where has LEDU been in promoting east Antrim? What have those bodies been doing? What have they been saying? Why have there been so few visits? Why do we hear of jobs being created west of the Bann? Why do we hear of employers setting up business in Londonderry, Dungannon and other areas, while Larne, Carrickfergus and Newtownabbey suffer?
I sit on Newtownabbey Borough Council. At times, we are concerned with the Nortel set-up. We have Nortel at one end of the constituency and F. G. Wilson at the other. God forbid that anything should happen to those two companies, or east Antrim would be in desperate trouble. The Minister has kindly come along today. However, I must ask her — where is our college in Larne? What is delaying the investment?
We have rightly heard that the East Antrim Institute is not sited in east Antrim. It is in north Belfast. Why are the people of Larne and the surrounding area penalised through there being so little further education provision in the town? We know that youth unemployment has increased. Is that because they are not encouraged to pursue further education in Larne? I cannot answer the question. I do not know why it has taken so long for that particular development to take place.
Many people in east Antrim are trying. The six MLAs have been vigilant in seeking to bring new investment to the area. We have met together, we have met those in authority, we have met business people and we have asked the right questions. However, nothing seems to happen. I ask a simple question — why has east Antrim been neglected? It is unfair and something needs to be done. I call on those in authority to take east Antrim on board.
I totally agree with my Colleague Ken Robinson when he calls for a task force to be set up. Indeed, I have been calling for that for months. That is one issue that I put to Sir Reg Empey when we met him. A task force must be set up that is solely concerned with promoting east Antrim and with bringing jobs to the area before it is too late. I am pleased to support the motion.

Mr Jim Wilson: I recognise that the debate focuses on job losses in east Antrim. However, I am acutely aware that employment catchment areas do not recognise constituency or district council boundaries. Madam Deputy Speaker, I have taken your advice on my contribution to the debate and I shall do my best to adhere to the guidelines that you have set me. I thank you for permitting me to contribute to the debate.
The neighbouring constituency of South Antrim, which I represent, could be described as a gateway to the rest of the Province. Traffic that enters the port of Larne in east Antrim passes through south Antrim on its way to Belfast and to the west of the Province. Belfast International Airport is in the heart of my constituency, and the M2 motorway runs its full length. One could argue that an infrastructure and communications network would rubber-stamp south and east Antrim as an area of commercial attractiveness. However, the announcement in December 2001 by the Antrim textile company Norfil that it was to cease production with the loss of almost 200 jobs heralded a catalogue of job losses in the region. Since then we have had bad news from companies based in both constituencies. Although situated outside south Antrim, companies in east Antrim and other areas draw a large part of their workforce from the Antrim and Newtownabbey council areas. Although part of Newtownabbey is in east Antrim, most of the town is situated in south Antrim, a point well made by my Colleague Ken Robinson.
Nortel is one such company, just over the constituency border in East Antrim. It boasts many South Antrim employees in its workforce — or rather, it did.
The tragic events in the United States of America on 11 September dealt devastating and far-reaching blows to the aviation industry. Belfast International Airport, one of County Antrim’s greatest strengths, suffered as a result. The withdrawal of the British Airways flights to Heathrow and the further announcement by Aer Lingus brought more bad news for jobs in south-east Antrim. Shorts is one of the Province’s major players and an attractive employer for people residing in County Antrim. However, it felt the draught of the American tragedy. Fortunately, the initial prediction of 2,000 job losses has been reduced, and the final total has yet to be announced.

Ms Jane Morrice: I advise the Member that he has taken some geographical licence. The guidance is that Members should confine their remarks to the subject areas indicated. I understand that you are making the link, Mr Wilson, but you must ensure that those links are constantly made.

Mr Jim Wilson: I will try to come back into line, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are witnessing a hangover from the years of direct rule when we did not have local politicians focusing on local issues. However, it would be wrong to be totally despondent. Since devolution, new jobs have been created in east Antrim. There is no doubt about that; it is not a matter for dispute. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and the Department for Employment and Learning are pulling out all the stops to ensure that the Province continues to remain attractive and to come to the aid of those who have suffered losses in the region. I urge the Minister to use all her offices to do everything possible to speed up the process of retraining and re-employing those who have lost jobs in the region.

Mr Danny O'Connor: Will the Member give way?

Mr Jim Wilson: I have finished.

Ms Carmel Hanna: I thank Mr Beggs for giving me the opportunity to respond and to discuss some ways in which my Department approaches activities to address the impact of the recent job losses and the wider need to provide all our people with jobs and lifelong learning opportunities. Since the 1960s, east Antrim has had a reputation for being the centre of Northern Ireland’s major industry. While things have changed considerably — Mr Beggs would probably say dramatically — it is vital that we maintain and build on what still exists and keep those companies in Northern Ireland so that we are still positioned to take advantage of future opportunities. It is obvious that all the Members present have a genuine concern for their constituency, and that has been articulated very clearly in the debate.
Job losses have a devastating effect on everyone in a community, including other businesses, families and Members. Nobody escapes. Today it was County Antrim, with the closure of Dorma in Randalstown, and we can see exactly the effect of that. It saps morale and undermines confidence. There have been so many redundancies and job losses in east Antrim that I will be unable to mention them all, but I know that Solectron dealt a major blow to the area. The job losses are regrettable, but they are a result of the global downturn in the telecoms market. It was a commercial decision taken by the company. However, I am thankful that it still has a presence there, and it is essential that we keep it there. The IDB will work with Solectron to explore ways in which the local operation can, it is hoped, start to grow again. This will include developing relationships with the parent company to position Northern Ireland as a preferred site for other mobile projects within the corporation.
The IDB will continue to market the east Antrim area to potential investors. From April 1998 to date, there have been 75 first-time and 19 repeat visits to the area by potential investors. Although the Member may think that is not enough, it illustrates the ongoing contact between the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and the local councils in east Antrim to understand their economic priorities and to work together in marketing the region to potential investors.
Although we are all aware of the current difficult market conditions and the severe downturn, particularly in the telecommunications market, Northern Ireland still retains a strong cluster of world-class telecoms companies. Those companies have not been immune to the impact of the market downturn, and the repercussions have hit hard in Northern Ireland, including in east Antrim. However, I believe that the availability of high-speed telecommunications will become more important than ever to businesses as new applications are developed and the level of e-business and e-commerce increases. We must press on in this area and ensure that, as a region, we are well placed to respond to the upturn in the market when it comes. The Government have a key role to play in the area to provide opportunities and hopes for the future.
I am very aware that east Antrim has suffered over the past months as a result of several major companies announcing redundancies and closures. Most of those companies had contracts with Nortel, and most of the redundancies have taken place since 11 September. My Department’s main concern is to minimise, as far as possible, the impact of those redundancies on the lives of the individuals who have been affected. The jobcentres work closely with the IDB, LEDU, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, the Social Security Agency and the relevant local companies to try to offer as full a range of services as possible to those who have been made redundant.
Professional advice on new career opportunities is available to everyone affected by the redundancies. This is provided by my Department’s career officers, as well as by qualified staff from the Educational Guidance Service for Adults, with which we liaise closely. As part of that service they provide information and advice on job searching; curriculum vitae writing; local job vacancies; job vacancies further afield, including in the European Union countries; and training and other services available through New Deal.
Where appropriate, job clubs have been set up for employees to attend prior to the date of their redundancy. My staff maintain close working relationships with the Social Security Agency and, indeed, are co-located with that agency in Carrickfergus. That joined-up service enables us to have an integrated and holistic approach to our advisory and support service by incorporating advice on benefits issues.
In Larne our approach has been co-ordinated within the local enterprise agency, LEDCOM, which is being particularly proactive and is helping to co-ordinate a wide range of activities. It has helped to facilitate meetings between the relevant local companies and the appropriate agencies, including our jobcentre and social security staff, and it has proved to be effective. The Carrickfergus jobcentre manager is currently in the process of arranging meetings with the enterprise agency in the Carrickfergus area to discuss replicating that model there.
Other initiatives and services include the new Focus for Work provision that was introduced last October, which provides a range of measures to assist unemployed people back into work, and which has started well in the local area. There are also employment review interviews, which are voluntary interviews for jobseeker clients approaching their thirteenth week of unemployment to discuss work goals and the steps taken to achieve them. We have the job clubs, which aim to provide job search skills for unemployed people, including those under notice of redundancy or who are returning to the labour market. They provide individually tailored technical, procedural and personal assistance and support aimed at helping jobseekers to identify and obtain employment opportunities.
In Carrickfergus the job club provider is Enterprise Ulster, and in Larne it is JTM Training and Employment. In December it held a job club for those being made redundant at AVX, and they will have a further session in March. Training for Work is a new vocational training programme aimed at assisting clients with an identified training need to improve their chances of getting a job. A key objective is to help the client develop and maintain positive work attitudes in a programme lasting for up to 26 weeks.
Enterprise Ulster has been piloting a programme across Northern Ireland since last September. WorkTrack is particularly suitable for those who need to establish a work history. There is also the Bridge to Employment programme, which aims to provide customised training courses to equip the unemployed, including the long-term unemployed, with skills to enable them to compete for new job opportunities. Members all know about New Deal, the major element of the Government’s welfare to work strategy, which gives unemployed people a chance to develop their potential, gain skills and the experience to find work.
It is depressing that all the jobs are gone, and we are discussing remedial action, but this is what we have to do to get back to our previous position.
On the wider issue of education, training and lifelong learning provision, my Department supports a range of provisions in the east Antrim area. I will advise the Assembly of the activities in place and under development in the further education sector.
The central aims of further education in Northern Ireland relate directly to the subject of our debate: supporting economic development and widening access to, and increasing participation in, further education and training. Another aim is to improve quality and raise standards. These aims are the bedrock of the Department’s lifelong learning strategy, which reflects the Executive’s focus on economic development and social inclusion.
As the largest provider of vocational education and training in Northern Ireland, the further education sector is ideally placed to respond effectively to these challenges. In 1999-2000, the latest year for which figures on full-time enrolment are available, the further education sector had over 120,000 vocational and almost 70,000 non-vocational enrolments. The college closest to east Antrim is the East Antrim Institute of Further and Higher Education; in 1999-2000 it had 6,700 vocational and 3,690 non-vocational enrolments. I visited the East Antrim Institute recently. These totals include enrolments from the institute’s current campus provision in Larne and its outreach provision in Carrickfergus.
In recent years the institute has widened access to further education and increased participation by individuals who, for whatever reason, had not previously taken advantage of the opportunities available. The institute has also maintained a clear focus on the economic needs of Northern Ireland. It has seen a 31% increase in enrolments in the six areas of skills need identified as important to the development of Northern Ireland’s economy.
The East Antrim Institute has demonstrated particular strengths in information and communication technology training and is one of only three centres in Ireland approved to run the Cisco certified network professional qualification programme. The other two centres are in Dublin and Cork. The institute also offers one of the current pilot foundation degrees in telecommunications in conjunction with the University of Ulster.
To ensure that the outputs of the sector are aligned as closely as possible with the needs of business and industry, colleges are encouraged to develop and strengthen partnerships with the key players in the local area. These partnerships should not only drive up the demand for learning, but put in place the infrastructure to satisfy demand. That is the aim behind the partnership fund operated by my Department, which was introduced in 1999 and called the collaboration fund. That initiative aims to establish partnerships inclusive of all major interests, including the business, voluntary and community groups, local councils and chambers of commerce. To date, my Department has provided £900,000 to that fund. The East Antrim Institute has put that money to good use and has advised the Department on a range of activities that it has taken forward on the basis of that funding, such as collaboration with the borough councils of Newtownabbey, Larne and Carrickfergus, the development of the East Antrim Learning Partnership and collaboration with businesses.

Ms Jane Morrice: I advise the Minister that there is only one more minute before the end of this debate.

Ms Carmel Hanna: I will move on swiftly, because I want to respond to some of the comments made in the debate. We have been talking about the task force on employability and long-term unemployment, and its report is due for consultation around the end of March. I hope that its proposals will be radical and innovative and will address seriously the core problems in our changing labour market and economy.
I want to respond briefly to the Members who spoke. Mr Beggs talked about the new TSN, and we await the outcome of that review. Mr Beggs, Mr O’Connor and others spoke about the Larne campus. Members are aware that an economic appraisal for a new facility has been approved. There has been some delay with the title deeds. However, it is hoped that the new further education college will be funded from the sale of the old campus, and I will do all I can to advance that as soon as possible.

Ms Jane Morrice: I advise the Minister that, because we only have one hour for this debate, she should take a few seconds to draw her remarks to a close and advise Members that she will give them written responses.

Ms Carmel Hanna: I will certainly respond to the Members. As I have said, my Department has an open door, and I will be happy to talk to any Members. I assure all Members — and particularly Mr Beggs, who raised this matter — that I will do everything in my power to bring employment back to the east Antrim area as soon as possible. I appreciate Members’ participation in the debate, and I will take all their views on board.
Adjourned at 4.47 pm.